Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Maternal Health: Ethnic Minority Women

Robbie Moore: What steps the Government is taking to improve maternal health outcomes for ethnic minority women.

Gillian Keegan: We remain committed to understanding and addressing ethnic disparities in maternal mortality rates. A new office for health improvement and disparities will be launched on 1 October, which will make addressing disparities in health outcomes a priority. In January, the then patient safety Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), announced a £500,000 fund for a maternity leadership programme. NHS England recently published its equity and equality guidance, asking all local maternity systems to produce action plans to improve equity in maternal outcomes.

Robbie Moore: This month, I was lucky enough to meet Fazeela Hanif and her team at the Highfield Centre in Keighley, who recently launched a digital health hub that, among other things, creates a safe place for ethnic minority women to access maternal health and wellbeing provision. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating her and her team? Will she explain what the Government are doing to support places such as the Highfield Centre in Keighley to deliver such services?

Gillian Keegan: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the team at the Highfield Centre in Keighley on what sounds like an excellent approach, showing real leadership. The Government are committed to ensuring that women across the country are able to access the support that they need. The NHS long-term plan includes a commitment for a further 24,000 women to be able to access specialist perinatal mental health care by 2023-24, building on the additional 30,000 women accessing those services each year by 2020-21 under existing plans. Specialist care will also be available from preconception to 24 months after birth, which will provide an extra year of support.

Jim Shannon: After recent statistics showing that women in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are 32% less likely to take up help for post-natal depression, what discussions has the Minister undertaken with her counterparts in the devolved institutions, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly,  to ensure that women from ethnic minorities are offered the correct care if needed, to remove the stigma that they may feel they might encounter?

Gillian Keegan: I agree that that is a very important area that should concern us all. We look forward to working with the hon. Member; I will arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister before Christmas.

Caroline Nokes: The Five X More campaign has done incredible work highlighting the disparities in maternal outcomes for women from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Its single biggest ask is that the Government set targets to drive down those disparities. Can my hon. Friend indicate what progress is being made and whether the Government will set those targets, as the campaign calls for?

Gillian Keegan: The Government are clear that there is absolutely no place for inequalities or racism in our society. If anyone experiences that in the NHS’s support or approach, that is obviously something that we are deeply concerned about. The Minister for Women and Equalities has been consulting with senior midwives and clinicians from ethnic minorities to discuss how we can improve the experience for all. Discussing targets and so on will be part of that ongoing process, and I am sure that they will look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter further as we work towards improving the system for all.

Afghanistan: Women and Girls

Jeff Smith: What assessment the Government has made of the impact of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan on women and girls in that country.

Carol Monaghan: What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting women in Afghanistan.

Wendy Morton: All those at risk of persecution in Afghanistan, including religious and ethnic minorities, are eligible to apply to the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which will welcome up to a total of 20,000 vulnerable Afghans to the UK over a five-year period. The impact of the crisis in Afghanistan on women and girls and on other vulnerable groups, including religious and ethnic minorities and LGBT+ people, is of deep concern and has been discussed frequently by the Cabinet. The Taliban must respect the rights of all minority groups, both now and in the future, and we will hold them to account for their actions.

Jeff Smith: I agree with the Minister on that. It has been a depressing week in Afghanistan, with primary school students returning to gender-segregated classes, older girls excluded altogether, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs closed down and female employees told not to return to work. How, specifically, can we use our leverage, particularly our financial and economic leverage, to hold the Taliban to account for their promises?

Wendy Morton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the issues around women and girls—particularly education, an area in which we have done a lot of work over a number of years. It is important that we do all we can to maintain the progress that has been made.
When it comes to what more we can do, the Prime Minister has been very clear that we will judge the regime by its choices and actions rather than by its words, and that any relationship with a future Taliban Government would need to be calibrated according to their respect for fundamental rights for women and girls. Lord Ahmad addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council on 24 August to underscore our commitment to protecting the human rights of all Afghan people.

Carol Monaghan: Since 2001, life chances for women and girls in Afghanistan have been dramatically improved, but with the Taliban’s return, that is obviously under severe threat. What discussions is the Minister having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that long-term funding is channelled into initiatives that promote and support women and girls in Afghanistan?

Wendy Morton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. Life expectancy increased from 56 years in 2002 to 64 in 2018, and over the past six years the UK has helped more than 250,000 girls to attend school through the girls’ education challenge fund. As for the question of engagement, the Afghanistan response is obviously taking place across Whitehall, involving many Departments. We have also hosted roundtables with non-governmental organisations in London in order to understand better how we can support the work that they do, and meetings have taken place in both August and September to discuss continued humanitarian access.

James Gray: As we heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), some worrying signs are emerging from Afghanistan of intolerance towards women and girls, and towards other minority groups as well. None the less, the words are warm. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, right now, we must take the Taliban at their word, we must hold their feet to the fire, and we must make sure that they do what they say they are going to do? If they do not, of course we must then take steps against them, but for now, let us work with the diplomatic channels to try and force them to join the rest of the civilised world.

Wendy Morton: The then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), made a statement to the House on 6 September restating our commitment—particularly in respect of human rights—to
“hold the Taliban and other factions to account for their conduct”.—[Official Report, 6 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 44.]
On 15 September, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), said in a debate on the Joint Committee that we would take forward our priorities, including human rights,
“at the UN General Assembly…with our international partners.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 1057.]
As I have said, it is very clear to me that any relationship with a future Taliban Government would need to be calibrated according to their respect for the fundamental rights of women and girls.

Anum Qaisar-Javed: The Taliban, who banned women from playing all sport during their rule in the 1990s, have indicated that women and girls will face restrictions in playing sport, which has caused the country’s women’s football team to flee to Pakistan. What collaborative discussions has the Minister had with her Home Office colleagues about setting up special visa categories for at-risk Afghan sportswomen and artists to enable them to settle permanently in the UK?

Wendy Morton: If the hon. Lady wishes to highlight specific cases, it is probably best for her to raise them with my colleagues in the Home Office, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is sitting on the Front Bench and will have heard what she said. More broadly, it is important that we continue to hold the Taliban to account if they do not respect the rights of all minority groups, now and in the future.

Covid-19: Support for People with Disabilities

Luke Evans: What steps the Government is taking to support people with disabilities after the covid-19 outbreak.

Guy Opperman: In July this year we published the health and disability Green Paper and the national disability strategy, which takes into account the impacts of covid-19 and the impact on disabled people in particular. It also focuses on the issues that affect disabled people in general, which we want to address on an ongoing basis.

Luke Evans: A disabled constituent from Bosworth wrote to me about difficulties in travelling within the UK. I wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which wrote back referring to the national strategy for disabled people and a vision of making the UK the most accessible country in Europe by 2025. What work is being done in respect of enabling the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the DCMS jointly to make the UK a place where disabled people can work, travel and play?

Guy Opperman: I want to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituent and indeed my hon. Friend, who has done so much already for his constituency and the many tourist destinations on his patch, that we are on a mission to make the UK the most accessible tourist destination in the world.

Vicky Foxcroft: Disabled people, on average, face increased costs of £583 a month. Worryingly, the High Court case against the Government on the lack of a £20 uplift in legacy benefits has been delayed owing to a lack of available judges. The Government’s strategy for disabled people promised better cross-departmental working. What pressure is  the Minister putting on the Department for Work and Pensions to publish its commissioned research on the uses of health and disability benefits to ensure that we assess the adequacy of the various benefit rates that apply to disabled people?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Lady will be aware that we have published the health and disability Green Paper. We have also published a strategy, and we are working across Government to ensure that all these matters are being addressed.

STEM Subjects: Uptake by Girls

Antony Higginbotham: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of uptake of STEM subjects by girls.

Kemi Badenoch: We are pleased to see an overall increase in entries for STEM A-levels and GCSEs by girls this year, including a notable 12.7% increase in A-level computing entries. We want to see further progress, and we are funding interventions in STEM subjects such as the gender balance in computing programme to further improve girls’ participation.

Antony Higginbotham: One of the biggest barriers to getting students to study STEM subjects is the lack of high quality, qualified teachers in the area, so will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating organisations such as Burnley College in my constituency, and also BAE Systems, which works across Lancashire and encourages and teaches young people the value of STEM subjects? Will she join me in encouraging more employers to sign up to such schemes, so that we can get more children into STEM?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that is taking place in his constituency, and I extend my thanks to Burnley College and BAE Systems. We recognise the value that early interactions with employers can have for girls’ ambitions, and the Government continue to lead work to enhance STEM outreach. I should point out that secondary schools are expected to provide pupils with at least one meaningful interaction with employers per year, with a particular emphasis on STEM employers, and we will continue to encourage them to do that.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister must surely know that the more emphasis we can put on stimulating young people at the earliest age, the better. Pre-school and infant school—that is the time to have imagination and to get girls interested in maths and science. Does she agree that we need to make special efforts at that early age?

Kemi Badenoch: I agree that these things start at an early age. I learned how to code at the age of seven, and I do not think it is a coincidence that I am an engineer by training today. These things make a difference, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that young people, especially young girls and women, are able to pursue careers in STEM.

Jesse Norman: It is a delight to address my beloved former colleague on the Treasury Bench. Is she aware of the extraordinary work being done in the new model of technology and engineering in a radical new form of tertiary educational institution in Hereford that blends further education and higher education with a commitment to the enfranchisement, support and development of women in engineering?

Kemi Badenoch: I was not aware of the fantastic work that is taking place in Hereford, although I suspect that the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), is. I would particularly love to hear more about this, and I would be very happy for my right hon. Friend to write to me and share more about what is taking place there.

Nationality and Borders Bill: LGBTQ+ People

Olivia Blake: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the Nationality and Borders Bill on (a) equality, (b) personal safety and (c) the process of providing identity evidence in the asylum process for LGBTQ+ people.

Tom Pursglove: The Nationality and Borders Bill, which is part of our new plan for immigration, seeks to build a fair but firm asylum and legal migration system. On 16 September, we published an equality impact assessment for the policies being taken forward through the Bill. This includes an assessment of the potential impacts on people who are LGBTQ+.

Olivia Blake: The Nationality and Borders Bill raises the standard of proof for assessing whether someone has grounds to fear persecution to the higher level of balance of probability. If the Minister were an LGBTQ+ asylum seeker, how would they prove, on the balance of probability, that they were, and how would they go about finding proof after a life of trying to hide their identity for fear of persecution?

Tom Pursglove: I am mindful of the point that the hon. Lady makes. She will appreciate the fact that I am new in role in the Department and that I am getting up to speed with the Bill. We began taking evidence in the Bill Committee yesterday, and the line-by-line scrutiny will begin after the recess. I take on board the point that she raises, but what is crucial in taking forward the measures in the Bill is how we operationalise those plans, and I would fully expect that we will be sympathetic in taking proper account of the issue that she raises.

Covid-19: Inequality in Unemployment Rates

Meg Hillier: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on understanding the reasons for the increase in the inequality in the unemployment rate between young black people and young white people during the covid-19 outbreak.

Guy Opperman: Understanding why labour market disparities exist between ethnic groups is complex, and work is ongoing across Government to understand better why these disparities exist. In particular, we have a national programme of mentoring circles involving employers who are offering specialised support to unemployed young ethnic minority jobseekers.

Meg Hillier: I am sure the Minister was as shocked as the rest of us to discover that the increase in young black unemployment was exponentially higher than the increase in young white unemployment at the end of the last quarter of last year, and it has not got better. What specific programmes will he undertake to make sure that we do not see the additional scarring of a generation of young black people aged 16 to 24?

Guy Opperman: The Government are already acting on this precise point, and in the hon. Lady’s Hackney constituency the jobcentre is working with the council and with local charities as part of the improving outcomes for young black men programme. The focus of that programme is on harnessing successful young black men’s potential and tackling specific inequalities where they exist.

Mark Eastwood: I am the Government’s new trade envoy to Pakistan, so does my hon. Friend agree that greater trade links and investment between our two great countries can only improve jobs and prosperity for all our communities?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is completely irrelevant to the question, unfortunately. I would love to take it, but it has no link.

Covid-19: Support in the Workplace (Protected Characteristics)

Marion Fellows: What steps the Government are taking to support people with protected characteristics in the workplace during the covid-19 outbreak.

Guy Opperman: As the hon. Lady will understand, the vaccine roll-out is key. I was delighted to have my third jab this morning, and I would urge all colleagues to make the case for the vaccine roll-out, which is important for everyone but particularly for those with protected characteristics and those of us who are in the 1% who were shielded throughout the pandemic.

Marion Fellows: The outbreak of covid-19 posed a risk to all workers, but especially to those with particular disabilities and those who are immunocompromised. The UK Government’s national disability strategy could have made progress in supporting those workers by introducing statutory timescales on reasonable adjustments for employers, but it did not. What priority on the strategy is the Minister communicating to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? Will representations be made to add timescales for statutory reasonable adjustments?

Guy Opperman: The Government are working on a number of issues, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the Access to Work programme, which has introduced a more flexible working offer to support disabled people to move into and retain employment, including with homeworking support and mental health support. Of course, the kickstart scheme also has more than £2 billion of funding.

Anneliese Dodds: Baroness Lawrence’s report, “An Avoidable Crisis”, found that the Government’s failure to ensure workplaces are covid secure had a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority workers. They are more likely to be trapped in low-paid, precarious work, more likely to be overlooked in decisions on workplace protections and more likely to be struggling to self-isolate due to the risk of financial loss. Why are the Government still refusing to require employers to report occupational covid infections and to publish their risk assessments to keep these workers safe?

Guy Opperman: I am sure the hon. Lady will meet the relevant Ministers, but she will be aware of the disability strategy and the Access to Work programme that we have introduced, which has a more flexible working offer for disabled people with the chance for homeworking support and mental health and wellbeing support. There are also 20 black, Asian and minority ethnic mentors working across the country, from Birmingham to Brent and from Glasgow to Manchester, to ensure there is true access.

Anneliese Dodds: I thank the Minister, and I hope he will at least attempt to answer my second question. People with protected characteristics have taken a disproportionate hit to their workplace income during the pandemic. Ethnicity pay reporting is a vital tool to address that. Three years have passed since the McGregor-Smith report recommended it, yet two days ago a Minister said that the Government still need to work out even what it makes sense to report on. Why are the incomes of black, Asian and ethnic minority people of apparently so little interest to this Government?

Guy Opperman: I would make two points. First, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), has reminded me that the Government will be responding to the matter this autumn. Secondly, I was shielded myself. I had my third vaccine this morning. We need to make the case that everybody needs to go out and get their third vaccine or their booster straightaway.

Claire Coutinho: Being online is a critical part of a politician’s work, yet in the past two weeks we have seen such an appalling level of abuse targeted at women and people of race that a Conservative Member has come off social media and an Opposition Member has been unable to go to their own party conference. Will the Minister please set out what we can do to get online companies to take more care on the level of abuse and harassment they tackle online?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is not related really to the question. Are you sure you can answer it in relation to the question, Minister?

Guy Opperman: I can, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious matter and it does touch upon the point raised. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and many others deserve the full protection of the police and so many others, in our workplace, out of our workplace, on an ongoing basis. We stand with all of them, regardless of party.

Kirsten Oswald: Following the 2008 crash, pregnant women and new mothers were made redundant in their thousands, unfairly selected because they were mothers, in what has been described as “straight up discrimination on an industrial scale”. The Taylor review and the UK Government research both confirmed that such discrimination still exists. So as the furlough scheme ends, pregnant women and new mothers need immediate action on this. Will the Minister press his colleagues to bring forward the much-delayed employment Bill and take immediate action to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination?

Guy Opperman: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given by the Minister for Care, who represents the Department of Health and Social Care. I also respectfully invite the hon. Lady to meet Ministers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy specifically to raise the employment status of the women she identifies.

Topical Questions

Ruth Edwards: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: I am delighted to announce the appointment of LGBT business champion Iain Anderson, who will work with the Government, building the evidence base on how to ensure that LGBT people can be themselves in the workplace. Among his first priorities will be kick-starting a business-led mentor network, including small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting the global LGBT conference and engaging businesses to highlight the economic case for LGBT inclusion.

Ruth Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to tackle geographic inequality is by making sure that people can get great jobs and have fulfilling careers wherever they live? Will she join me in backing the east midlands freeport business case, which would create 60,000 jobs across the region?

Kemi Badenoch: I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I point out that the Government are doing just that with our plan for jobs, which included £895 million to recruit an additional 13,500 work coaches by March 2021—which we achieved. She raises an important point and we are, of course, glad to support her region and all regions across the country.

Taiwo Owatemi: Next month, this Government will cut the £20 uplift to universal credit. However, this summer, a staggering seven in 10 UC claimants seeking support from the StepChange Debt Charity were women. StepChange also reported that from October 70% of women receiving UC will see their monthly spending exceed their income. How will the Minister respond to a callous cut that disproportionately impacts women? Better still, will she support cancelling the cut altogether?

Kemi Badenoch: We have had multiple debates on UC, and we have been at pains to say that this extra £20 was a temporary measure brought in because of covid. We are looking after the public finances, we are doing the right thing by taxpayers and we are doing everything we can to support vulnerable people in this country.

Paul Howell: Last week, I had the privilege of meeting my constituents Thomas Gill and his parents, who suffered major injuries as a result of a car being driven by a female driver who was under the influence of drink and drugs. Thomas raised his concern because the sentencing was so low and young women were getting more lenient treatment than young men. Could the Minister assure him that we are equal under the law?

Guy Opperman: I was very sorry to learn of the injuries sustained by Thomas, and it is right that this matter is raised by my hon. Friend. I can assure him and the House that equality applies to all aspects of justice—it always has and it always will.

David Linden: On top of the injustices suffered by 3.8 million WASPI women and the widening gender pensions gap, today’s National Audit Office report finds that the Department for Work and Pensions underpaid 134,000 pensioners, many of whom were women. What steps are the Government taking to tackle the gender pensions gap? Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we can try to tackle that?

Guy Opperman: The Government are doing huge amounts to tackle the gender pensions gap. Automatic enrolment is transforming the situation. Women used to be at 38%; they are now at more than 80% of savings on an ongoing basis.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on Parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Robert Largan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 September.

Dominic Raab: I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the House will know, he has been at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he has held meetings with world leaders, in particular leaders from countries vulnerable to climate change. He has also met President Biden for discussions on climate, covid and international security.

Robert Largan: GPs have done a brilliant job delivering the vaccination programme. They have had to work very long hours in the most challenging circumstances, and now they are having to deal with a huge covid backlog. As a result, many of my constituents have contacted me, frustrated by how difficult it is to see  their GP face to face. Just this week, I have been contacted by someone who was diagnosed with cancer after being taken into hospital. She said to me: “I can’t help but wonder if they’d have caught it sooner if I’d been able to see someone in person, instead of trying to describe my symptoms over the phone.” I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government are doing to tackle the covid backlog and get face-to-face GP appointments back as soon as possible.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is a huge champion of his local NHS and I know of his incredible work on the reinstatement of breast cancer screening clinics among other things. I join him in thanking GPs for the heroic job they have done in seeing us through the pandemic. Although appointment numbers have returned to pre-pandemic levels, of course patients and the public rightly expect to see their GP face to face when necessary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor has funded a £36 billion package to deal with the NHS backlog as well as pursuing our plan for social care.

Angela Rayner: The hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) makes an important point that I think Members across the House are concerned about. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in his comments regarding the work of GPs and our local primary care services.
I begin by offering my commiserations to the Prime Minister after he flew away to the US and made absolutely zero progress on the trade deal that he promised us.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister still believe that British workers are
“among the worst idlers in the world”?

Dominic Raab: I say to the right hon. Lady that, for a start, it is excellent news that, because of our engagement with the US, it has immediately given us a boost to trade and businesses by reinstating travel from the UK to the US.
When it comes to British workers, I say to her that we have got payroll employment back to levels we saw before the pandemic. We have got youth employment rising, businesses advertising over 1 million jobs—a record high—and the fastest economic growth in the G7 this year.

Angela Rayner: Mr Speaker, still no trade deal. The words were those of the Deputy Prime Minister in his book, which he wrote alongside the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary. His actions speak even louder than those words. Whatever Conservative Members say, their political choices have made it harder for working families to get by. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much his universal credit cut and national insurance hike will take from a worker on £18,000 a year, say a shop worker or a travel agent?

Dominic Raab: The universal credit uplift was always meant to be temporary. We have paid the wages of nearly 12 million workers throughout this pandemic, and we are coming out with rising jobs and rising wages. We would have done none of that if we had taken the right hon. Lady’s advice and not come out of lockdown. Labour has no plan; our plan is working.

Angela Rayner: The Deputy Prime Minister has lots of words for “I don’t know”, so let me help him: his Government chose to cut the income of a worker on £18,000 a year by more than £1,100. That is almost exactly the same as an average annual energy bill. Just as energy prices are ballooning, the Government have chosen to take the money that could cover a year’s-worth of bills out of the pockets of working people. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the solution is for people to work harder, so can he tell us how many days a worker on the minimum wage would have to work this year in order to afford a night at a luxury hotel in, say, Crete?

Dominic Raab: If the right hon. Lady wants to talk about taxes and easing the burden on the lowest paid, I will remind her that, whenever the Labour party has gone into government, the economy has nosedived, unemployment has soared and taxes have gone through the roof. Under this Government, we have cut income tax, saving every worker £1,200 each year. We have introduced and extended the national living wage, so that full-time workers are £4,000 better off each year. We have doubled free childcare for working parents, worth up to £5,000 for every child every year. When Labour takes office, unemployment goes up and the economy goes down.

Angela Rayner: The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the economy; he does not even know how much his own holiday cost. Let me tell him: a worker on the minimum wage would need to work an extra 50 days to pay for a single night at his favourite resort—and probably even more if the sea was open.
The very same week that the Government are cutting universal credit, working people face soaring energy bills. The Prime Minister has said that it is just “a short-term problem” and we will leave it to the market to fix. Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that no one will lose their gas or energy supply or be pushed into fuel poverty this winter?

Dominic Raab: The Business Secretary has made it very clear that energy supplies will continue and that our No. 1 priority is to protect consumers.
Let me remind the right hon. Lady of her words. This was in The Guardian on 11 May, so it must be true. She said that the Labour party must stop
“talking down to people…Working-class people don’t want a handout”,
they want “opportunities”. They are getting those opportunities under a Conservative Government, with catch-up tutoring for more than 2 million children this academic year and hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people under our kickstart scheme, and we are helping more than 1 million people on long-term unemployment under the restart scheme. The right hon. Lady is right: Labour talks down to working people. Under the Conservatives, they get to rise up and fulfil their potential.

Angela Rayner: I notice that we have a shortage of hot air this week, but although the Prime Minister is not here, the Deputy Prime Minister is doing his best to shore up supplies.
You know what, Mr Speaker? The Deputy Prime Minister talks about opportunities, but the Government have axed the green homes grant, scrapped the zero-carbon   homes standard and lost the storage facility that held three quarters of our gas. Their failures paved the way for this crisis, which will hit families and businesses, and as usual it will be the British people who will have to pay the price. Will the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that none of the workers employed by the energy companies will end up unemployed because of his Government’s failures?

Dominic Raab: Well, there is no shortage of hot air on the Opposition Benches.
The Business Secretary has been crystal clear: we have seen the challenge of wholesale gas prices rise all over the world, and we will maintain supply this year. He has taken targeted action to support the two critical CO2 plants to ensure that we see through not only energy supplies, but food distribution. The reality is that, for all the Opposition’s cheap political barbs, they have no plan. If we had listened to the Labour party, we would not have opened up, we would not be bouncing back, jobs would not be rising and wages would not be rising.

Angela Rayner: Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister should go back to his sun lounger and let me take over. The truth is that the Government were warned about the problems and the energy crisis that we face. And there we have it—absolutely nothing to help the people up and down the country who are working themselves to the ground and are still struggling to make ends meet. This is a Conservative party that does not care about working people.
Families across the country are worried about  heating their homes, while the Deputy Prime Minister is complaining about having to share his 115-room taxpayer-funded mansion with the Foreign Secretary—the truth hurts, doesn’t it?—just as his Government are making choices that are making working families’ lives harder. A typical family are facing a tough winter this year: universal credit down 1,000 quid, rent up 150 quid, gas bills up 150 quid, taxes up and food prices soaring. Working people will have to choose whether to feed their kids or heat their homes. The choice for the Deputy Prime Minister is whether he will make their lives easier or harder—so what will he choose? Will the Government cancel the universal credit cut?

Dominic Raab: The right hon. Lady should check her facts, because Chevening is funded by a charity—not a penny of taxpayers’ money.
The most disastrous thing for the energy bills of hard-working people across the country would be to follow Labour’s plan to nationalise the energy companies, which the CBI says would cost as much as £2,000 in bills. This Government are the ones taking action to take the country forward, with a plan for the NHS and a plan for covid, and our plan is working: employment up, job vacancies up and wages up. If we had listened to the Labour party, we would never have come out of lockdown. We are the ones taking the difficult decisions and getting on with the job, and our plan is working.

Rob Butler: Last week, members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme from across the House attended our excellent Defence Academy. What is striking is the number of service personnel from overseas who come to the UK to benefit from its world-class professional defence and  security education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a further illustration that, far from being a fifth wheel on the carriage, the UK is at the heart of ensuring global security, and that the AUKUS pact is one of the best ways to meet emerging threats, particularly in the South China sea?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is bang on. The AUKUS partnership is incredibly important for our security. It builds on what we said in the integrated review about promoting stability in the Indo-Pacific. It builds on our free trade agreement negotiations, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It builds on our membership, as a dialogue partner, of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—the first new member in more than 20 years. It will provide huge opportunities for jobs and businesses here at home, as part of the levelling-up agenda.

Kirsten Oswald: Across Scotland and the UK, millions of families are seeing their incomes slashed by this Tory Government, with a toxic combination of Tory cuts, tax rises and the growing cost of Brexit. The Prime Minister promised that he would make energy bills more than £60 per household cheaper after Brexit. Instead, they could skyrocket by £550 at the worst possible time. The UK Government are slashing universal credit by £1,040, furlough is ending prematurely and a Tory tax hike will leave the majority of families hundreds of pounds worse off next year. Let us be clear: this is a Tory cost of living crisis, and yet again lower and middle-income families will suffer the most. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time to scrap Tory cuts to universal credit and to introduce an emergency energy payment for lower-income families, so that no one has to choose between heating and eating this winter?

Dominic Raab: May I say to the hon. Lady that many of those issues are devolved to Scotland? The energy price cap will save 15 million households up to £100 each year. We are also taking targeted measures to extend the warm home discount; that will be £150 knocked off the bills of 780,000 homes. We are providing seasonal cold weather payments to eligible claimants—an extra £25 a week during colder periods. On top of that, we are giving a winter fuel payment to recipients of the state pension. But the crucial thing is that we have rising employment and rising wages, and that will benefit everyone in Scotland and across the UK.

Kirsten Oswald: That is a disappointing and perplexing response from the Deputy Prime Minister, who perhaps needs to go back and look again. I have to say to him: warm words do not heat homes, and unless these Tory cuts are reversed, we will see even more families pushed into hardship and crisis.
Yesterday I met East Renfrewshire Citizens Advice Bureau, who warned of a cost-of-living tsunami hammering families: a universal credit cut, Tory tax hikes, and soaring household bills. Because of this Government’s choices, people are having to choose between heating their homes or feeding their families. For all their empty rhetoric, you cannot level up by making people poorer. So can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is  stubbornly refusing to consider introducing an emergency energy payment that would help families through a very difficult winter?

Dominic Raab: As I said, the price cap in place will save £50 million households up to £100 each year. On top of that, because of the approach we have taken with the national living wage, full-time workers will be £4,000 per year better off. But, given the challenges that we understandably face, I think that people expect—including those in Scotland—for us to come together and stop this scaremongering and this sowing of division. That is why I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the fact, with some of the challenges that the Scottish ambulance service is facing, that we have the British armed forces helping the people of Scotland.

Chris Loder: [R] The bus and train operator FirstGroup continues to slash our transport services in West Dorset despite receiving millions of pounds of public money with no revenue risk at all, and having the worst rail line frequency in the country on the Heart of Wessex line. Will the Deputy Prime Minister directly intervene to save what little service we have on that three-hourly-frequency line or actively work to get a new operator that will?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend; I know he is a great champion for the people in his constituency. I understand that the Department of Transport has been engaging with the transport operators in his constituency. I also understand that South Western Railway intends to increase service levels to their pre-covid timetable by May 2022, and it has ambitions for an increase in the train service frequency on the Great Western Railway route. DFT will of course continue to work with GWR, and I continue to support him in trying to champion commuters and passengers on all those services.

Stephen Farry: Without a green new deal, the Government are struggling to meet their carbon reduction targets under the Paris agreement. At the same time, the international energy industry is making it clear that there should not be any new exploitation of oil or gas fields if the world does not meet the 2050 target for carbon neutrality. Yet the Government are potentially investing in the new Cambo oilfield in the North sea and also supporting other oilwells across the UK. How can the Government have any credibility when they made a pledge to cease funding oil and gas companies yet this is still going ahead?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We launched the landmark North sea transition deal to transform the oil and gas sector in preparation for net zero, so we have a plan. We have also secured record investment in wind power totalling close to half a billion pounds. We have a world-leading hydrogen strategy, and we are the first major economy in the world to set net zero into law. On Monday at the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister announced £550 million of official development assistance that will be allocated to support developing countries to meet net zero. We are leading by example at home and abroad.

Andy Carter: As you know, Mr Speaker, Warrington is one of the fastest growing towns in the north of England, but our hospital, which is mostly Victorian, is creaking at the seams. Over the last year, the hospital has recruited an additional 240 new nurses and more than 100 doctors, but we need more beds. Will the Deputy Prime Minister speak to the Health and Social Care Secretary and ask him to back our bid for a new hospital in Warrington?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for patients and his constituents. We have now received applications to be one of the next eight hospitals in our new hospitals programme and I understand that an expression of interest has been submitted proposing developments across Warrington and Halton hospitals. Notwithstanding the smart way in which he has gone about his intervention, he will understand that I cannot comment on particular applications, but there will be a decision by spring 2022.

Deidre Brock: As the Scottish National party’s Westminster COP26 spokesperson, I welcome today’s announcement by Ineos of £1 billion of investment into cutting greenhouse gas emissions at its Grangemouth plant and supporting the carbon capture, utilisation and storage Acorn cluster at St Fergus in Aberdeenshire. It is a big step in the right direction. I must ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Can he outline exactly what his Government have against the Scottish Government requiring real living wages for Scottish workers and net zero obligations in their green ports?

Dominic Raab: Net zero is at the heart of everything that we do and we have raised the national living wage, which will save a full-time worker £400 every year.

John Penrose: Later today, the Subsidy Control Bill will give us all a welcome chance to replace clunky and bureaucratic EU-derived laws with faster, simpler and more flexible UK rules instead. But does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that subsidies need strong controls so that they are not misused by—heaven forbid—a future Labour Government? Ministers have already committed to make the UK a world leader in subsidy transparency, so will he look carefully at proposals to publish details of more subsidies in future rather than fewer, as the Bill currently suggests?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend knows that today the House will discuss our landmark Subsidy Control Bill, which will allow us to seize the opportunities from having left the EU. Our new control system will provide quicker and more flexible support to British businesses, but he is right in what he said about transparency. Decisions on subsidies that were previously subject to approval by unelected EU bureaucrats will now be decided subject to the scrutiny and rigour of hon. Members across the House. That will give us the transparency and accountability that he wants.

Barry Sheerman: I have known the right hon. Gentleman for some time and always got on quite well with him. He represents one of the wealthiest constituencies in the  country. Will he assure me that he still believes in the redistribution of income in our country? Does he really believe in levelling up? If he does, will he ensure that Channel 4 stays in Leeds and stays in the public sector? It is essential to the growth of our tech economy in the north of England.

Dominic Raab: We put the UK Infrastructure Bank in Leeds because we love Leeds. The hon. Member asks about inequality and levelling up. The levelling-up agenda will of course help those in the midlands and in the north, but it will also help those in London and the south-east by easing the pressure on the economy, easing the pressure on tax revenues and easing the pressure on planning.

Chris Green: The Government say that, to protect the most vulnerable, they are compelling care workers to be vaccinated against covid-19 even though that is expected to force out 40,000 carers who have been on the frontline throughout the pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend set out why the same approach is not being taken to protect the most vulnerable in the national health service?

Dominic Raab: We are very clear: vaccines are saving lives, and they are also boosting the economy because they have allowed us to open up. They are particularly important for the risk to vulnerable people, including carers in care homes. Over 90% of care home staff have received their first dose ahead of the November deadline. We encourage others to get vaccinated, and the Department of Health and Social Care is currently considering whether to make vaccination for not just covid but flu a condition of deployment for frontline workers in health settings and care settings.

Patricia Gibson: The increase in employers’ national insurance payments will place a huge burden on the public sector from local government to police and fire services. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what the financial impact of this will be both north and south of the border and if additional funding will be provided to ensure that there are no cuts to our vital public services?

Dominic Raab: Of course the Treasury assesses these measures very carefully. We are supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people under our kickstart scheme. We are taking a range of other measures, including the restart scheme. Of course we look at the tax burden, but I would just remind the hon. Lady that we are the ones who have taken—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] We are the ones who have saved the average worker £1,200 every year. We doubled the free childcare for working parents. Frankly, I say to the hon. Lady that we are of course mindful of the pressure on public services, as with the private sector, and we are doing everything we can, but the SNP opposed coming out of lockdown. The SNP opposed—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please, we have to try to get through some questions. It is those on your own side you are stopping asking questions, Deputy Prime Minister, with too long an answer.

Dehenna Davison: A lot of the reason why I am standing in this Chamber today follows a chain reaction of events following the   death of my father from a single-punch assault, but my dad is just one of many victims, which is why this week we are marking One Punch Awareness Week. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will join me in showing his support for One Punch Awareness Week, and can I extend an invitation to him, and indeed to all colleagues right across the House, to join me immediately after PMQs in Westminster Hall to show that support?

Dominic Raab: Can I say to my hon. Friend that I know how much this campaign means to her personally? I know that hon. Members across the House will be very proud of the tenacious way she is pursuing that campaign. Of course I will join her in Westminster Hall, and I would encourage all hon. Members to do the same.

Carla Lockhart: Following the ill-informed and partisan comments from President Biden overnight, would the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Prime Minister to point out to those he meets in the US who actually care about political stability in Northern Ireland that, far from defending the Belfast agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol is now the single greatest danger to the political institutions? The situation is now time-critical. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that a solution that restores Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom’s internal markets is the only way to avert the collapse of the institutions, and such a solution must be found in weeks rather than months?

Dominic Raab: We absolutely agree that having a smart and pragmatic approach is the only way that we will be able to uphold the Good Friday agreement for all communities in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding what the reporting has said, I know, having been in Carbis Bay with the Prime Minister and the President, that the President understands our view and we have explained our position, as well his taking into account what the EU has said.

Jesse Norman: The House will know that the River Wye is one of the most beautiful rivers in our country and also a priceless national asset, yet it is being threatened by phosphate pollution. Will my right hon. Friend press colleagues in the Government and in No. 10 to work with us to push the agencies and other interested bodies to a long-term integrated plan to clean up the River Wye?

Dominic Raab: Of course, the Government understand, and my right hon. Friend champions eloquently, the importance of the River Wye. We will do everything we can to support him with preserving it for future generations.

Margaret Ferrier: With fewer than 100 days until Christmas, many of our constituents will be choosing to shop for children’s toys online. There have, unfortunately, been incidents of young children swallowing small parts, such as batteries and magnets, that require invasive medical intervention. With rogue traders out there, how can consumers be satisfied that the toys they purchase via online marketplaces are safe, marked as age-appropriate and meet the required safety standards?

Dominic Raab: I have young children, and I know what it is like at Christmas when, as well as being a time of great happiness, there is also a certain degree of trepidation when they go for the presents in the way the hon. Lady describes. I reassure her that manufacturers and distributers must provide information on the age-appropriate use of toys. The UK Office for Product Safety and Standards will take action to remove products online that pose any risk, and our product safety framework is being reviewed to ensure that it is fit for purpose, that it is updated in line with new products going on to the market and—above all—that it protects consumers.

Jonathan Gullis: Stoke-on-Trent has so far received £29 million from the transforming cities fund and 550 jobs from the Home Office, and Kidsgrove has received a £17.6 million town deal. After 70 years of neglect by the Labour party, Stoke-on-Trent is firmly on the map. We also have a £73.5 million levelling-up fund bid. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Stoke-on-Trent, which is now hungry, gets its just deserts?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituency. He is right to say that we are giving all the support we can, and that the only reason we are seeing that level of prosperity is that we have employment rising, youth unemployment coming up, and rising wages. That is happening under this Government, because the Opposition have no plan whatsoever.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is nice to welcome back Sir George Howarth.

George Howarth: May I thank you personally, Mr Speaker, for the kindness you showed during my recent illness?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that town halls know better than Whitehall when it comes to levelling up? Will he pass on my suggestion to the Prime Minister that he host a cross-party summit in Downing Street with local government leaders and Mayors, to discuss how they can be empowered to unlock that potential?

Dominic Raab: Whatever our differences, it is fantastic to see the right hon. Gentleman back in the Chamber, contributing and holding the Government to account.
The agenda for levelling up must involve a team effort, with central Government, local authorities and the many metro Mayors across the country. I support the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and we will do everything we can to work with him.

Siobhan Baillie: In Stroud the Nailsworth Climate Action Network held a well-attended retrofit fair to help people learn about the benefits of insulating homes and the options available. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate that group on its constructive approach to this difficult issue, provide the House with confidence that the Government are creating even more solutions for energy efficient homes, and let us know when there will be more details of that work?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend and support all the efforts at a local level that she is pursuing. We are backing that up at a national level, by requiring all new build homes by 2025 to have low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency. That is on top of the record investment in wind power, and on top of   producing a world-leading hydrogen strategy. This is about bringing the world together, because it will require an international solution at the COP26 global climate summit in November.

Rachel Hopkins: Some 239 jobs in the Vauxhall plant in Luton South are at risk this week due to the semiconductor chip shortage and furlough ending this month. The Government have failed to safeguard jobs, failed to maintain key strategic supply lines, and failed to support the UK’s capability in areas such as silicon. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline what No.10 will do to ensure that the UK automotive sector remains competitive globally, and that skilled jobs in towns such as mine, Luton, are saved?

Dominic Raab: I do not think it quite right to say that the Government have not been supporting workers. We have paid the wages of nearly 12 million workers throughout the pandemic. Clearly that cannot continue indefinitely, but I reassure the hon. Lady specifically that the Government are investing in supporting gigafactories. We will be investing in the technologies of the future that will create the jobs of the future in her constituency and right across the UK.

Derek Thomas: All hon. Members enjoy the opportunity to eat British food, drink British drink and enjoy British flowers. I am joined by all of Cornwall’s MPs in pressing the Home Secretary to renew the seasonal agricultural workers scheme for next year—that is 30,000 people—and also to allow them to pick daffodils. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please speak to the Home Secretary, to remind her of the urgency of getting that scheme renewed?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for his constituency and the region. I will of course pass on his suggestion and advice to the Home Secretary. I believe that she has been lobbied from various other quarters. We are very mindful of the impact on seasonal workers, and we will make sure we get the right balance.

Anna McMorrin: A former junior Minister for courts and justice once told this House that he was
“absolutely committed to doing everything”
he could
“to improve the treatment of victims in the justice system.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 20.]
After six years and three manifesto commitments, we are still waiting for the Government to deliver their promised victims Bill and that junior Minister is now the sixth Justice Secretary in that time. Will he commit here today to delivering that long-overdue victims Bill and bringing justice to millions of victims across the country, including my constituent who was left homeless, jobless and traumatised through the court system?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady. I can absolutely make that commitment. On day one, I looked at the plans and expedited the work that we are doing on that. [Interruption.] Well, if she will give me a chance; I have not been in the job a full week.
I can also tell the hon. Lady what we are doing right now with the women and girls victims strategy, which we published in July. We have provided a national police   lead who reports directly to the Home Secretary. We have invested £30 million in making streets safer at night, which is particularly important for women so that they have the reassurance they need that there are no no-go areas and no de facto curfews. We have also introduced 24/7 rape and sexual assault helplines.
I gently say to the hon. Lady that, in terms of standing up for the victims of crime, I lament the fact that the Labour party voted against our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, requiring all violent offenders, all rapists, all child rapists, to serve at least two thirds of their sentence behind bars. You cannot stand up for victims unless you stand up for tough sentencing.

Violence Against Women and Girls:  Police Response

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind all hon. and right hon. Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that cases in which proceedings are active, including where charges have been made, should not be referred to during questions. I am sure that all Members will wish to respect that resolution, especially where there is a prospect of court cases in the future. Nobody would want to put those cases at risk.

Harriet Harman: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on what action she will be taking in response to the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on the police response to violence against women and girls.

Rachel Maclean: Crimes of violence against women and girls are utterly despicable. They inflict profound and lasting harm on the victims and have a damaging impact on our society as a whole. That is why the Government are taking concerted action to crack down on these appalling crimes.
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for providing me with an opportunity, as the newly appointed Safeguarding Minister, to outline our work in this area, and I very much hope to work collegially across the House. I know that every parliamentarian shares our concern about these serious issues.
The Home Secretary commissioned this report from the police inspectorate to help police forces strengthen their response. We are carefully considering the inspectorate’s findings, and we expect the police and others to take any necessary action. The Home Secretary has committed to considering the report’s full recommendations and will update Parliament when she has done so.
We supported the inspectorate’s recommendation in its interim report in July to introduce a full-time national police lead for violence against women and girls. I am pleased to say that Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth has been appointed to the role, and we look forward to working with her.
While the report shows that there is more to do, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have made progress. The report acknowledges improvements in the police response to these crimes, including better identification of repeat victims, improved techniques to collect evidence, and improved safeguarding measures.
Since 2010, the Government have taken significant action in this space, including introducing new laws to tackle stalking, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called revenge porn. Importantly, we have brought forward the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench, and to the Prime Minister for playing a vital role. We have more than doubled the safer streets fund, while our unprecedented police recruitment drive is putting more officers in our communities to protect the public and drive down crime.
We are determined to go further, which is why we published our new tackling violence against women and girls strategy in July, and we will publish a complementary domestic abuse strategy this year. Our new strategy will drive our effort to prevent these crimes, ensure that victims get the support they need, and bring perpetrators to justice. It details a number of steps, including immediate investment in measures to make our streets safer, more funding for specialist support services, and a multimillion-pound public behaviour campaign to challenge unacceptable behaviour.
Public protection is our No. 1 priority. Violence against women and girls has absolutely no place in our society, and we are committed to working with the police and other key partners to confront these crimes wherever they appear.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

Harriet Harman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really grateful to you for granting this urgent question.
I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her new role and wish her well in it. I will support her in her work, but we need a greater sense of urgency. In just the last few days, there have been more horrific killings of women. In Sheffield, 35-year-old Terri Harris was killed together with three children, John Paul Bennett, Lacey Bennet and Connie Gent. In Greenwich, primary school teacher Sabina Nessa was only 28 years old.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of police, Zoë Billingham, rightly describes this as an “epidemic” of male violence against women, and the extent of the impunity of men for this violence is shown by the killer of Sophie Moss saying that it was just “rough sex gone wrong” and literally getting away without a murder charge.
All credit to the Government for commissioning this report. Will they now implement its recommendations in full? We have a woman Homey Secretary, and I believe that women in leading positions have a special duty to deliver for other women. Although she will meet the inevitable institutional objections and traditional resistance to change, she will, if she does this, have 100% support from this side of the House and, indeed, 100% support from her own side. It is not often we can say this, but this is something that the whole House wants.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her questions, and I pay tribute to her for her long-standing record of action in this area. I am sure that she will continue to hold me to account at this Dispatch Box and in other forums.
Speaking on behalf of the Government and myself, our heart goes out to all those affected by these horrific crimes. Our thoughts are with the families and the victims. The right hon. and learned Lady will be aware, however, that we cannot comment on ongoing cases.
Addressing murder is a key priority for the police. They are, of course, operationally independent from the Government, and rightly so. Driving down the murder rate in this country is a key priority. The right hon. and learned Lady mentions the report’s findings. We are working carefully and very closely on them and are considering them in detail. That is why we have appointed the policing lead Maggie Blyth; we look forward to working with her and taking forward those recommendations and actions.

Theresa May: I welcome my hon. Friend to her role at the Home Office, a great Department of State. She is going to be doing important work there, and I wish her well.
We can succeed in ensuring that we have no violence against women and girls only if we change attitudes, as referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), including the attitude that women “just ask for it”. One of the issues in the report is a lack of consistency across and between forces in their treatment of crimes of violence against women and girls. The College of Policing plays an essential role in developing and spreading best practice, so will my hon. Friend ensure that particular attention is paid to recommendations 4.3 and 4.4, to ensure that best practice is adopted by all forces up and down the country?

Rachel Maclean: It is a real privilege to be questioned by my right hon. Friend on this issue. She has been instrumental throughout the years in initiating the important work I am now talking about. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that when women go to the authorities to seek help, they need to be listened to and they need to be supported adequately. That is a key part of the work we set out in the violence against women and girls strategy. We will be making sure that that takes place.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come now to the shadow Minister, Jess Phillips.

Jess Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new Minister to her place.
The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services highlights the continued staggering failures by the Government to protect women and girls adequately. We should not make any bones about what it actually says. Since Sarah Everard was killed, a further 78 women have been killed by men, and I am sure that we would all wish to send our support to the family of Sabina Nessa this week.
The report tells the Government that there cannot be anything less than sweeping and fundamental changes across the board. There have been many reports, statistics and cases this year. After each one there has been an opportunity for concrete action, but each time we simply get a piecemeal response—a little review here, a pilot project there. Tackling misogyny and violence is on all of us, but primarily it is on the Minister. It is the Government’s job to keep people safe. The report is clear. In the words of Her Majesty’s inspectorate, these problems have arisen because of
“the continuing effects of austerity on policing and partner-agency budgets.”
The Labour party continues to call for a comprehensive violence against women and girls Bill. We also support all the recommendations in Zoë Billingham’s report. Will the Minister today commit to keeping to the very detailed action plan commanded by the report within the timeline it states? I will, of course, be checking. Will the Minister now take seriously our calls for the proper supervision and management of repeat offenders? Again, I quote from the report:
“there is no consistent and dedicated model in place for managing domestic abuse offenders”.
No model in place, Mr Speaker. I could actually scream. How can there be no model in place to deal with violent criminals? We have repeatedly asked for one. When can we expect it?
Will the Minister tell this House—I have asked this from this Dispatch Box before—when the Government will finally categorise violence against women and girls as a serious crime, just as they do with terrorism and serious youth violence? When I asked this question recently of the Minister for Crime and Policing, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is in his place, he said that local areas can do it if they want. That is exactly the kind of half-hearted effort that leads to patchy approaches that this report decries. It is not an acceptable response. Will they finally act? They have a chance to do it in the House of Lords in these weeks around us.
The safety and security of women is not some side-line, add-on issue; it is essential to a functioning society. It can no longer be a weight borne by women everywhere. Every day wasted waiting for the Home Secretary to decide if she wants to undertake the recommendations is another rape, another murder and another beating.

Rachel Maclean: I am delighted to answer questions put to me by the hon. Lady and I look forward to many more opportunities to do so, but I must start by robustly rejecting her central accusation, which I think is that the Government have done nothing. May I remind her that the Government commissioned the report precisely because this is a priority for this Government? This Government have delivered a number of measures to keep women safer, whether they are legislative measures, funding to essential services to support women, toughening up laws or passing laws to keep more perpetrators behind bars.
Let me point to a couple of key parts of the strategy. We have appointed someone with a lifetime of experience to work with us; following the report published only last week, I am looking forward to working closely with Zoë Billingham. I will take forward what she comes out with very seriously to ensure that the police drive forward her recommendations.
Make no mistake: this issue is a central priority for me. I have been in my role for three days, but the hon. Lady will know that it is a priority for me and for the Home Office as a whole.

Jackie Doyle-Price: There will not be a single woman in this House who has not been the victim of dehumanising behaviour from men. As my hon. Friend says, addressing that will require societal change, but we are increasingly seeing that women’s first exposure to that violent behaviour is in schools. What steps will she take to challenge the Department for Education to make sure that we have conversations about consent and tackling entitlement at the earliest possible time?

Rachel Maclean: I completely agree about the important issue of early intervention, working with families and young people and tackling the root cause of these horrific crimes. That is why, as part of the violence against women and girls action plan, we have commissioned a significant public communications campaign that will tackle many of the issues that my hon. Friend addresses,  but it is also vital that I work with my colleagues in the DFE and that we ensure we are working in schools as well.

Yvette Cooper: The Select Committee on Home Affairs heard damning evidence last week from rape survivors about how they have been let down by the criminal justice system. The report is also damning about the scale of the problem and the scale of the change that is needed.
I welcome the Minister to her new post and look forward to working with her on the issue, but may I say to her that urgency is hugely important? We have heard very many words about very many reforms over a long period of time, but on rape prosecutions, things have actually gone backwards. I urge her to say that she will support all the recommendations and implement them, not just take them forward. If she cannot commit to implementing them this week, will she come back next week, commit to implementing them and make sure that they actually happen in practice and save women’s lives?

Rachel Maclean: I refer to my previous comments. It is right that we work with people who are independent and have authority over the police forces in this country. They are operationally independent from the Government; that is the system we have in this country, and it is right that we have that. It is right that I take evidence and work closely with those who have that expertise. I remind the right hon. Lady that we have already implemented a number of the recommendations in the report, as I set out earlier. My colleagues in the Home Office are doing wider work around rape and the end-to-end rape review, which is tackling some of the very important issues that she raises.

Richard Drax: I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Does she agree that one of the best things that we could do to protect women and girls from violence would be to reverse the catastrophic decision to close hundreds of police stations? If police stations are open, particularly in our towns and cities, the police patrol from them. They offer deterrence, reassurance and, in the worst cases, a place for women and girls—and men and boys—to run to.

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of active and visible policing. The Government are committed to recruiting 20,000 new police officers for exactly that purpose. It is right that we have our officers out on the streets, where they can fight the crime that is affecting our communities.

Clive Efford: On Friday evening, Sabina Nessa, a 28-year-old primary school teacher, was walking near her home in my constituency, in the Kidbrooke area, when she was attacked and murdered by a man who is yet to be identified. Our hearts go out to her family and friends.
Sabina’s murder highlights yet again the growing problem of violence against women and girls. The Victims’ Commissioner, Vera Baird, has described it as an epidemic and has endorsed the recommendation of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services that violence against women and girls be given the same  priority as counter-terrorism. Will the Government accept that recommendation, agree that the time has come to prioritise tackling violence against women and girls, and give it the resources it demands?

Rachel Maclean: Our deepest sympathies are with the family and friends of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. It is precisely cases like those that have led us to prioritise violence against women and girls in such a vital way. That is why we have appointed a national policing lead so that we can put the issue at the heart of Government policy. That is the right way to tackle it.

Ruth Edwards: I welcome my hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her statement. Data sharing and collaboration between organisations in victims’ cases are obviously sensitive but crucial issues and are highlighted in the report. Will she outline the steps that the Government are taking to improve data transparency, to help to stop offenders from repeating their heinous crimes?

Rachel Maclean: We are looking into these matters, which are clearly a vital part of our response. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss them in more detail.

Joanna Cherry: The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently held that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, yet women in public life are increasingly finding that we cannot debate or discuss our rights under the Act without fear of abuse, threats, intimidation and violence; I know that from my own experience, and I know that other Members of the House know it. To take just two other examples from public life, the celebrated writer J. K. Rowling and the celebrated feminist and campaigner against abuse against women, Julie Bindel, who was assaulted outside Edinburgh University, know that to be the case. My question for the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, is this: what is this Government doing to make sure that women can debate or discuss their rights under the Equality Act without fear of abuse, without fear of threats, without fear of intimidation and without fear of violence?

Rachel Maclean: I am grateful for the opportunity to answer the hon. and learned Lady. I am acutely aware of the issues that she raises. It is frankly a disgrace that women cannot go about their important work and express their opinions freely without the kind of harassment and intimidation that she refers to. This is a very wide societal issue. I would like to see the Labour party taking more active steps to protect its own members so that they can go to conference without fear of being attacked or abused, but these are matters for wider Government; I am very happy to meet the hon. and learned Lady and discuss them in more detail in due course.

Huw Merriman: Two years ago, when my constituent lived in a flat in London, she had to barricade herself in, while for two hours, on eight occasions, her neighbour, who had known mental health issues, tried to get in. When she called the police and they turned up, she begged them to look at the CCTV. They refused and left her and the individual still  in those flats. When she—not the police, but she herself—looked at the CCTV evidence seven days later, the man was found to have been naked and holding an implement. Only then did the police take the matter seriously.
Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss these issues? Does she agree that if I write to the Met commissioner, I would be a lot more assured that she was taking it seriously if she wrote back herself rather than palming it on to the local force who were responsible for the failure in the first place?

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important constituency case. It is shocking to hear the experiences of his constituent. I am very happy to meet him and I fully agree that this is exactly why we have published the strategy: to make sure that all police forces across the country are responding appropriately to crimes in these horrific circumstances.

Janet Daby: Sabina Nessa, a young teacher in Catford, had so much left to give our community. She was described by the headteacher as
“kind, caring and absolutely dedicated to her pupils.”
Her life was brutally taken, like those of so many before her, through misogynistic violence. How many women’s lives must be stolen before the Government take serious action?

Rachel Maclean: Every women who loses their life is one woman too many. We are devastated to hear of the loss of the life of Sabina Nessa, and our hearts go out to the family, as I said, but the hon. Lady will have heard my earlier comments about the priority that we have put on this work. The Government are passing legislation, setting out actions and tackling these horrific crimes, and we are determined to see a reduction in them.

James Daly: I welcome my hon. Friend to her place.
In the year to June 2020, it was estimated that 70% of domestic abuse cases were closed prematurely by Greater Manchester police. During the same year, 80,000 crimes were not recorded at all. The picture nationally is even worse: three out of four domestic abuse cases end without charge. A crisis is happening, certainly in my local policing area. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me and the chief constable of Greater Manchester to ensure that the failures that have happened there over many years can be put right at the earliest opportunity?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is at the heart of our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that cases are not closed and women get the justice to which they are entitled, and that perpetrators receive the sentences and punishment that they should receive. I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Karin Smyth: Violence against women and girls needs to be treated in much the same way as terrorism and county lines. It is about resources. It cannot be left to local forces and police and crime commissioners. What conversations is the Minister having, if this is a priority, with police and crime commissioners to ensure that they deliver on the agenda?

Rachel Maclean: The role of police and crime commissioners will be vital in this regard. Because I have been in my present role for only two days, I have had no conversations with them yet other than in my capacity as a local MP, but I am acutely aware of the role that they play in commissioning those vital local services, and I look forward to having many conversations about that in the future.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new job. She is right—operational policing has to be left to commanders and suchlike—but she can set the policy. Can we make it clear that there will be zero tolerance of any violence against women and girls, and that women who are at risk will be taken to a place of safety and not returned against their will to a place where a perpetrator could continue to subject the victim to violence?

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend has referred to domestic abuse. We have pulled out the whole issue of domestic abuse, because it warrants a separate response. That is why the former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), initiated the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which has rightly strengthened protections for domestic abuse victims across the board.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.
This new report recognises that fundamental system change is needed in the way in which police respond to violence against women and girls, and highlights positive examples in our devolved policy, such as the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. The commission led by the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas recommended that policing and crime reduction policy should be determined in Wales so that it is properly aligned with and integrated in our health, education and social policy. Good work is happening in Wales now; imagine how much more we could do if we had the necessary powers and funding. Does the Minister agree that in order to take a truly radical approach to tackling gender-based violence, we should follow Lord Thomas’s recommendation and devolve powers over policing in Wales to Wales?

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to respond to the right hon. Lady, but I am sure she will not expect me to make such commitments at the Dispatch Box. Of course we work closely with the devolved Administrations—the Minister for Crime and Policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), will have had many such conversations—but we need to work collegiately across our entire United Kingdom.

Emma Hardy: I hope that Members in all parts of the House can agree that every rape survivor is worthy of compassion, support and justice. Last week I highlighted the case of a constituent who had been raped but was not entitled to any criminal injury compensation because of a past conviction related to a previous addiction. I have written to the Department, and I hope that the promise of a meeting is fulfilled and we are able to sit down and discuss this. However, it seems wrong to me—and I hope the Minister agrees—that one rape victim should be considered somehow less worthy than another.

Rachel Maclean: I am obviously sorry to hear of the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent. The Government are doing a great deal of work in examining the treatment of rape victims, but the hon. Lady has raised a specific case, and of course I should be happy to meet her and discuss it with her.

Wera Hobhouse: I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. I have listened carefully to these exchanges, and I understand that she sincerely wants to tackle the issues, but I think that what we on these Benches are asking is for the piecemeal approach to end and for the Government to deal with the root causes of the problem. Will they finally tackle the root causes of violence against women and girls, and legislate to make misogyny a hate crime?

Rachel Maclean: If the hon. Lady is serious about tackling the root causes, she will understand that we need a whole-system approach—a societal approach—and it is impossible to do justice to that in these exchanges. The violence against women and girls strategy sets it out in considerable detail, and the inspectorate report pulls out some key themes. We are looking across the piece at all the actions that we need to take. We are taking this seriously: that is why we have passed the Domestic Abuse Act, created the VAWG strategy, and appointed the national policing lead. However, there is a great deal of work still to be done, and I am determined to do it.

Chris Bryant: We had another horrific incident in the Rhondda yesterday, and the police are still investigating. However, I want to ask about the injuries that are done to women. Many such injuries show bruises, and there is something to be seen by the naked eye, but many others are injuries to the brain, and are often not recorded by the police. No evidence is taken about them, and there is no screening.
First, may I urge the Government to please ensure that every woman who makes complaints about domestic violence is screened for brain injury? Just two simple questions—that is all they have to ask, so that we can get the right help to people who have had such injuries. Secondly, will the Government please support my private Member’s Bill on acquired brain injury, which will be debated later this year? It is very simple: it does exactly what Dame Cheryl did for autism. It simply requires the Government to have a cross-party strategy. Sixty-seven per cent of women in prison have had a brain injury. We are not going to tackle this unless the Government as a whole take a position on it.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing advocacy of this vital issue. He is right to say that many of the injuries done to women are hidden—and we know that this is a hidden offence, which often takes place behind closed doors. I shall be happy to meet him and discuss further what I can do in my capacity, and he is right to highlight the fact that this is a cross-Government approach.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the Minister to her new role. May I, in her early days in that role, ask her to look specifically at low-level sexual offending against women? As we know, offences such as indecent exposure often go unreported, or, if they are reported, are not taken seriously by the  police. We also know that that behaviour often escalates to far more serious sexual offending and to murders, as happened in the case of Libby Squire in Hull and Sarah Everard in London.

Rachel Maclean: The right hon. Lady makes a valid point, and this is an area that the Home Office is determined to look at in more detail. As she will appreciate, there are difficulties in gathering evidence, which is why we have focused on the communications strategy, helping women to have the confidence to come forward to report offences—and, most important, to know when they do come forward that they will be believed and action will be taken. That is a central part of our action plan.

Kerry McCarthy: As the Minister will know, the Department for Transport’s consultation on personal safety on the streets of England closed on 15 September. I appreciate the fact that when she was my opposite number in that Department she met me to talk through the issues, but, as she will also know, the Department for Transport is not the quickest Department when it comes to acting on responses to consultation, and I could reel off a whole list of issues that I am waiting to see turned into concrete action. Could she take it upon herself to talk to her colleagues in that Department, and ensure that there is speedy action on those responses?

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Lady in a different capacity. That was a strategy that I initiated during my time as a Minister in that Department, and she will see that my successor in the role, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), is sitting here on the Front Bench listening carefully to her comments. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. This is an important issue for the Department for Transport, and I am sure that the Department will respond in its usual speedy way to this consultation and all the others.

Toby Perkins: The Minister is obviously right to say that every woman murdered is an appalling tragedy, but it is particularly agonising when women are murdered when there were opportunities to protect them but they had not been taken. In my constituency, 23-year-old Gracie Spinks was murdered by a man who had been stalking her for months. She had reported this to the police. What has been described as a murder kit was found at the stables where she kept her horses, and it was handed into the police, but no action was taken. Ultimately, she was murdered at that very spot on 18 June. There is a real need for urgency and for police forces to be consistent in their approach. I welcome the fact that the Government have commissioned this report, but what can the Minister point to that the Government are physically doing to ensure that consistency across police forces prevents families like that of Gracie Spinks from having to undergo similar appalling grief?

Rachel Maclean: I am obviously sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which is clearly devastating. I can specifically point to the laws that we have already passed to tackle stalking, which are much tougher than the previous regime and include stalking protection orders. These are a vital part of our  response. In terms of consistency, which he and many other Members have raised, it is important to stress again that this is why we have appointed a national policing lead, Maggie Blyth, to drive this consistency. We know that there are forces that are doing an excellent job in responding to some of these horrific crimes, but some are not. That is why we need to work across the whole of the policing community.

Alex Davies-Jones: In the wake of so many women across the UK losing their lives at the hands of male perpetrators, I welcome the publication of the report. It recommends that
“there should be a radical refocus and shift in the priority given to VAWG offences by the police and all partners, including wrap-around, tailored support for victims”.
However, the Government have still failed to confirm the details of the long-awaited perpetrator strategy, so I ask the Minister, whom I welcome to her place, when exactly this strategy, which is so crucial to tackling violence against women and girls, will be published.

Rachel Maclean: I would like to be able to write to the hon. Lady about this specific strategy, as these are my first couple of days in this role. She is clearly right to highlight the importance of dealing with perpetrators and bringing them to justice, which is why we have introduced a number of measures across the piece in the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome the Minister to her new post. On this issue, there has to be a culture change in society as well as in the police and the criminal justice system, because the common thread running through many of these crimes is a power differential between women and men. Too many men still feel entitled to do or say whatever they wish to women, to  disrespect women and to harm them. What more is the Minister doing to tackle head-on the culture that is prevalent in too many men out there? What is she doing to change that culture?

Rachel Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this culture. He is also right to say that it is unacceptable. This type of violence against women and girls has no place in our society. Publishing the strategy is simply the first step. There are a number of actions that many actors in the system have to take. They include, but are not limited to, our significant public communication campaign, as well as working with our colleagues in education and schools, driving through our priorities and making it crystal clear that this culture has no place in our society and that we must tackle it.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the hon. Lady to her place and wish her well in her new ministerial role. Bearing in mind the shocking increase in domestic abuse throughout lockdown, has any consideration been given to allocating additional funding to women’s aid charities to help them to make contact with their vulnerable clients and to offer them the help that they very much need?

Rachel Maclean: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that we have passed, and we will be publishing our domestic abuse strategy setting out more detail of how we will work across the whole system to ensure that those places of safety are rightly available. Any conversations around funding are a matter for our colleagues in the Treasury, but he should be in no doubt that we are strongly advocating to see adequate funding going into those vital services.

Injunction to Protect the M25

Kit Malthouse: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about protests.
There is widespread anger throughout the country about the disruption, danger and misery that so-called climate protesters have caused with their selfish actions. On 13, 15, and 17 September, a group called Insulate Britain staged co-ordinated sit-down protests on the M25, leading to major traffic delays. They also targeted the wider road network—namely, the M1, M3 and M11. Dealing with that involved Surrey police, Essex police, Thames Valley police, Hertfordshire constabulary, Kent police, and the Metropolitan police as the lead force. A total of 241 arrests were made across those three days.
On Monday, those groups attempted to block the carriageway at junction 1A of the M25 in Kent, the M25 in Hertfordshire and junction 4 of the A1. Hertfordshire constabulary was present at both scenes and made 29 arrests. Yesterday, protesters blocked both M25 carriageways between junction 9 and junction 10. Surrey police arrived on the scene within three minutes and officers cleared the carriageway quickly. It is clear that police response times have improved significantly following the first two days of protests. The affected forces have dedicated significant resources to spotting protesters and removing them quickly.
Protest is a right, but it must be balanced against the rights of others to go about their daily lives. The right to protest is not unqualified and does not include a right to endanger others, to intimidate people or to break the law. The events of recent days have crossed this line. As anyone should know, sitting in the road is extremely dangerous, both to themselves and to others. Delays caused by protests between 13 and 17 September have cost drivers in excess of £500,000. This figure does not take into account the knock-on effect for the local road network, for manufacturing businesses or for those who missed their connections at ports. Previous actions of Extinction Rebellion, of which I understand Insulate Britain is an offshoot, have cost the taxpayer £50 million and diverted valuable police resources. We have all heard the heart-breaking stories about people not getting the medical treatment they needed, and seen people standing by their cars crying in frustration at this appallingly stupid and selfish behaviour. We have all had enough.
The Government have been working hard to address these concerns. The Home Secretary and I are in constant contact with the police, and we have been crystal clear in our support for their robust and swift enforcement of the law. There is absolutely no excuse for this selfish and disruptive behaviour. The irony is that it actually undermines the cause of climate change, as well as creating more traffic and pollution. These protesters live in a free country where they can lobby politicians, stand for election and boot us out of office if they do not like what we do. There is now widespread agreement in this House and across the political spectrum that climate change demands major action. In November, the UK will host a huge international conference where we will discuss and debate these very issues. But we do not change policies or make law in this country through  mob rule or being held to ransom, and these people should not suppose for one moment that the public are with them.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is under consideration in the other place, contains proportionate measures better to enable the police to deal with disruptive protests. By putting public nuisance on to a statutory footing, as recommended by the independent Law Commission, we will increase the powers available to the police for dealing with this sort of protest. However, the disruption to our transport network is now so harmful and dangerous that we need to take swift action. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have been working closely with National Highways to keep the situation under review and explore options for enabling the police to take a more robust approach.
With our full support, National Highways has now won an interim injunction to prevent protesters from occupying the M25. As colleagues will know, an injunction is a judicial order, made in this case by the High Court, that can require someone either to do something or to refrain from doing something. This injunction prohibits people from blocking, endangering, slowing down, obstructing or otherwise preventing the free flow of traffic on the M25. If a person breaches the injunction, or if they encourage or help others to do so, they will be held in contempt of court and may be imprisoned or fined. The fine is unlimited. This should act as a major deterrent, and it recognises that this law breaking is serious, with consequences that match the offending.
The police should be fighting crime in our neighbourhoods, not chasing activists across busy motorways. That is why we have taken this action now, and we are working with National Highways on obtaining a full injunction later this week.
This is a free country but that freedom, particularly to assemble, to speak out and to protest, does not come without responsibilities to respect the rights of others and the democratic process. The British people expect us to make decisions in a civilised, democratic manner, and they expect that those who seek to bully or blackmail are sent packing, so it is with some pleasure that I commend this statement to the House.

Holly Lynch: I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.
Tackling climate change is the single greatest challenge of our generation, and I trust the Minister agrees with me that it must be at the heart of everything we do. We are at a critical moment. In less than 100 days, COP26 will be over and our chance to keep the planet’s warming below 1.5° will have been either grasped or abandoned.
Climate protests range from blocking roads to shutting down transport networks in London, with protesters gluing themselves to cars and roads. These are often very dangerous tactics that require a very particular police response. The police have been in an incredibly difficult position, and they have at times faced criticism on various fronts. Yesterday, as the Minister said, we saw Surrey police arrive on the scene just minutes after the first call, clearing both carriageways incredibly swiftly.
Labour is clear that the right to protest is a fundamental freedom and a hard-won democratic tradition of which we are deeply proud. The right to protest is precious,  but we must always be clear that protests have to be lawful. Where they are unlawful, we back the police on the frontline to make the best operational judgment on how to deal with the issues as they arise on the ground. Our police are not helped by armchair critics of their tactics. We know that the police are having to take dynamic decisions in often dangerous circumstances, and I pay tribute to them in the House today.
Anyone who has seen the footage from over the weekend of officers having to follow protesters who were rushing on to the motorway in an attempt to keep both them and drivers safe will recognise the bravery required. There is clearly an issue when people, who can be held for only 24 hours, then return to our motorways, so action is required to assist our police in that respect.
This injunction has now been granted to National Highways by an independent judge, and people are committing a contempt of court and face possible imprisonment if they breach it. I urge people not to breach the injunction and instead to make their views known lawfully in all the ways outlined by the Minister. That said, I look to him to tell us what resources will be made available to support the police to make additional arrests, if required.
I hope we can agree that insulation must be a focus of this Government’s agenda as we move towards this existential crisis. Although we agree on the need to ensure protesters, motorists and police officers are safe, the Government must do all they can to drive climate change up the agenda, and on that we will hold them to account.

Kit Malthouse: I thank the hon. Lady for her unequivocal support for the police, which we do not always hear in this House. I am grateful to her for that. It is undoubtedly the case that the police forces affected have had to move extremely quickly to deal with these guerrilla tactics, and we are grateful to all the police officers, as always, for often putting themselves in harm’s way.
I am also pleased to hear the hon. Lady recognise that the right to protest is not an unqualified right. We all treasure it, and we all know that great advances have been made in our society because of it, but it has to be done within a framework of respecting the rights of others, and I hope we are encapsulating a better balance in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that is currently in the other place. I hope she will review her party’s opposition to the Bill and possibly support it when it returns to this Chamber.
Finally, I hope the hon. Lady shares my extreme frustration at the damage such protests do to the cause of fighting climate change. For my own part, I have been an advocate of the hydrogen economy for well over 20 years. I chaired Hydrogen London for eight years and I fought tooth and nail to equip London with the means to transition from a combustion economy to one driven by electrochemistry. For those of us who have been at that coalface for many years, it is extremely disheartening to see people screaming in frustration and filled with negativity about the notion of climate change being a battle that we still have to win, but it also holds out an exciting future for our country.
I am pleased that we have consensus on both sides of the House and, as we deal with these protests, I hope that we can count on that consensus in the future.

Huw Merriman: The real tragedy of these morons on the motorway is that they set back the cause of advancing decarbonisation in the transport system and they put lives at risk. I welcome the Minister’s robust statement. In the event that these injunctions are not successful, will he consider legislation that perhaps links the fines to the economic damage that is caused? Will more action be taken by this House, if needed?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is right to point to the damage that these protesters are doing, not least because we are learning that many of the leading characters in these protests operate on a “Do as I say, not as I do” basis. Strangely, we are all in the debt of Richard Madeley, who spoke for Britain when he interviewed some of these activists over the past few days.
On legislation, I know that my hon. Friend will be an enthusiastic supporter of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill when it returns to the House, not least because it puts public nuisance on a statutory footing. The maximum penalty that can be handed out by the courts for offences that meet the threshold will be 10 years, which will hopefully close this loophole. In the meantime, let us hope the injunction works.

Yvette Cooper: There is an important right to peaceful protest in this country, but running on to motorways is just dangerous. It puts lives at risk, so the police and the courts are right to take action to keep people safe. Given the importance of COP26 and action against climate change, and given the strong feelings across the country, what action is being taken to make sure that there can be legitimate, safe and peaceful protests or demonstrations around COP26 so that lives are not put at risk and we do not see such dangerous behaviour?

Kit Malthouse: I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her unequivocal support for the police and the action that has been taken. She is right that we need to do significant work to enable those who wish to make their voice heard during COP26. As she knows, there will be a significant public order operation around that event, part of which will be liaison with the protest organisers to ensure that their protest takes place safely. We have protests across the United Kingdom every single day, and the vast majority do take place safely. That requires a sense of responsibility from the protesters, recognising that the rest of us have a right to go about our lives unmolested by them while they raise the issues that they seek to highlight. I am glad that she mentioned COP26, at which we will bring the world to this nation and exhibit our ambition for the future, as well as urging others to do more.

Robert Syms: I congratulate the Government and National Highways on taking this action. It is vital that we nip this in the bud. These people are dangerous, and the consequences are not necessarily for those who can see them. Drivers who are miles back when the traffic comes to an instant halt could well face death or injury. Keep up the good work, crack down on this and let people demonstrate safely, but not on our roads.

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend speaks with his usual wisdom on this issue. The knock-on consequences of such traffic obstruction are economic but also emotional.  We have seen heartrending stories of people who have been unable to attend to sick or elderly relatives in hospital or who have been prevented from, who knows, getting to job interviews that might have clinched a bright future. All sorts of impacts are brought to bear by this kind of selfish protest. At the same time, the great sadness is that it diminishes, not enhances, enthusiasm for the cause that these protesters seemingly want to promote but are, by their actions, damaging.

Wera Hobhouse: First, let me express my support for every police officer who helps to keep us safe and keep public order—their safety is essential. However, I also understand the side of the protesters, who really feel that climate change is a threat to their future. We must make sure that the fundamental right to protest and of assembly is protected. I worry that injunctions such as this will serve to pit the police against protesters. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that this injunction does not undermine the principle of policing by consent?

Kit Malthouse: I had hoped that we would reach a consensus across the House. I know that the possibly relatively small number of Liberal Democrat supporters who were sitting in those traffic jams will have been disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question. This injunction was granted by an independent judiciary; it was a case put before them by National Highways that these protesters were causing significant danger, to not only themselves, but other motorists. On that basis, the interim injunction was granted. We will be seeking a final injunction later this week, when the wider case will be heard. That is the way we do things in this country—by the rule of law and democratic process. We do not do this by being bullied, held to ransom and blackmailed, and we certainly do not do it by putting innocent men and women who are just on their way to work, going about their business, to enormous inconvenience, misery and often, sadly, injury.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the Minister for his statement and warmly applaud the action he is taking against these eco-maniacs. There is no greater supporter of the police than I, but I have been disturbed at how long it has taken them to remove some of these protesters, especially in the early protests. I thought it was already an offence to block the Queen’s highway, and I would not want it to be put about that these protesters can be moved only if an injunction is in place, not least because this injunction covers just the M25—just the National Highways network around London—and it does not cover local roads in Northamptonshire, for example. So may we have an assurance from the Policing Minister that if these eco-maniacs seek to block more local roads, which in many cases can be just as busy as the M25, the police will take urgent and robust action to remove them from the highway?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is right to say that this type of protest has caused significant concern across the country for many people who rely on the roads for their livelihoods and to get around. As I say, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will strengthen police powers to deal with this issue. There is an offence  of blocking the highway at the moment, which the police are using to remove those protesters faster and faster. I am very grateful to those forces that have upped their game over the past few days, to the extent that Surrey police arrived within three minutes of the most recent blockage. Unfortunately, however, the penalty that attaches to that offence is quite weak—it is a level 3 fine, which is up to £1,000. The one thing we know about these groups is that they are well-financed, and this penalty is not proving to be enough of a deterrent. We hope that the injunction, the breach of which carries an unlimited fine and possibly up to two years in prison, will give us the deterrent we need while we wait for that legislation to appear.

Steve McCabe: I concur with the view that this behaviour is grossly dangerous and irresponsible, and I hope that these people will come to their senses. I understand the claim is that the purpose is to demonstrate their support for home insulation programmes. May I suggest to the Minister that he considers ensuring that those who are successfully prosecuted receive a sentence whereby they are put to work helping to insulate the homes of those less fortunate than themselves?

Kit Malthouse: What a splendid idea, not least as we learnt from the television this morning that one of the leading organisers of this group has yet to insulate his own home, despite urging the rest of us to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are investing significant amounts of money—more than £1 billion this year alone—on encouraging people to take green measures in their own homes, to help us with the fight against climate change. As for putting some of those individuals towards that effort, I am more than happy for them to come to have a look at the insulation in my roof, which could always do with some improvement—I think that is a jolly good idea.

Stephen Metcalfe: My constituents have had their lives hugely disrupted over the past week by the actions of these now so-called “morons on the motorway”. They are doing more harm than good by creating congestion, impacting air quality and driving up pollution in an area that already has poor air quality. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to meet our net zero commitments, we need to win the hearts and minds of the whole country to make the changes that are needed? Actions such as this are counterproductive and have seen the potential to divide us on this issue of climate change, rather than unite us, which is what we need.

Kit Malthouse: I could not have put it better myself; my hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. I know from his own history that one of the key things we have to do is engender in the British people the same enthusiasm for science and technology as he has shown in his parliamentary career, because that is the key way in which we will solve this challenge of climate change. This kind of blunt instrument—selfish behaviour—sets that cause back by years.

Sammy Wilson: I congratulate the Government on finally taking action against these hypocritical highway hoodlums, who have caused misery to many people across London and the greater area.  Does the Minister share my concern that the police seemed in some cases to collaborate with them? I am the last person to talk about protest, because I come from a party of protest and many a time have been engaged in protest. I have never had a police officer come to ask me whether I am comfortable or what he could do to help me to stay in the place where I am. Usually, it is a case of, “You are breaking the law, get out of the road.” As it is likely that these protesters will move to somewhere else where there is not an injunction, what discussions is the Minister having with the police to make sure that the boys in blue do not act on the side of the protesters in green?

Kit Malthouse: Happily, it is boys and, increasingly, girls in blue that we are seeing on the frontline. The alliteration is flying, is it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support in what we are doing. I would caution him in drawing any lessons from specific instances that have been filmed of police officers trying to do their best to handle these protests. The role of the police in this situation, as in all protest situations, is fundamentally to enable protest within the law. Although in any one day the police will do thousands of things that go well and something that then appears on social media may indicate otherwise, we need to be careful about drawing wider lessons of police treatment of people from that. We are in constant contact with the chief constables concerned and not least with the Metropolitan police, who are co-ordinating this action. If we need to expand our ability to deal with it, we will do so.

Jo Gideon: Along with millions of people up and down the country, I welcome the move taken by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary; it is good to see common sense prevail. Stoke-on-Trent has welcomed nearly £1 million of Government funding earlier this year as part of the green homes grant scheme, which is being distributed to the city’s most vulnerable. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the great work that Stoke-on-Trent City Council is doing to insulate homes? Does he agree that rather than hindering people who are going about their lives, the Insulate Britain protesters should be welcoming the important work being done by this Government and councils to insulate homes and cut carbon emissions?

Kit Malthouse: Stoke-on-Trent is soon to renamed part of the green country for the work it is doing. This shows the great tragedy of these protests; we are actually making enormous strides in our ambition to reach net zero, investing masses of public money in encouraging people to take up electric vehicles, insulate their homes and look at green technologies in the way they run their lives, and that is often being led by local government. So I am very pleased to offer my support to my hon. Friend and point the British public towards this great work that is being done, recognising that this is a positive step forward for us, rather than a stick to beat people with, which is what these protesters seem to be doing.

Henry Smith: It was recently a pleasure to meet constituents as part of the Great Big Green Week, when we had a fruitful discussion about the challenges of climate change. I welcome the injunction against irresponsible protest. Will my right hon. Friend  consider, if necessary, extending or applying to extend the injunction to other parts of the highways network, such as the M23, which serves my constituency and many important businesses, not least Gatwick airport?

Kit Malthouse: Of course we will, if required. Let us hope that the deterrent effect is enough, but if the protest extends to other parts of the motorway network, we will have to consider our judicial options while we wait for the legislation, currently in the other place, to emerge hopefully unamended so that we can put the public nuisance offence on the statute book.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is engaging with constituents. He might be interested to know that on Friday, I had a meeting with representatives of CAFOD in my constituency, who urged me to follow the words of His Holiness and pursue our climate change ambitions. Out of that meeting came a pledge from me to hold a green summit in my constituency in the next few months, where we will bring people together to discuss what more we can do in beautiful North West Hampshire to make our contribution.

Lee Anderson: This injunction is welcome news. Does the Minister agree that the police should now adopt a zero-tolerance approach and that, as soon as one of these morons sets foot on the motorway, they should be carted off in an electric police van and locked up in a fully insulated cell?

Kit Malthouse: In his usual forthright and direct manner, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the button. We are now seeing extremely swift action—police are arriving on the scene within minutes. He will understand that it is tough for them to patrol the entire motorway network and be there as fast as they can, but Surrey police were there in three minutes and in Kent, protesters were intercepted before they even got on the carriageway. But where do we want our police officers? We want them in our neighbourhoods, on our streets, fighting crime. We do not want them patrolling the motorway network, looking for those people. Hopefully, the injunction will mean that they can go back to doing the job we expect of them.

Pauline Latham: I commend the Minister for his action. It is about time those people learnt that they cannot make unpeaceful protests, which have an impact on the lives of so many people going about their daily work. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) who asked what would happen if they set foot on his part of the M23. May I ask the Minister to look at the M1 and the A1, which take people north and are crucial to the lifeblood of the country? If we do not keep the traffic moving, we will affect the economy. I commend my right hon. Friend for what he has done, but ask him please not to hesitate to do more if necessary.

Kit Malthouse: We are very alive to the possibility of other motorways being affected. If they are, of course we will take the action that is required. My hon. Friend highlights an important point: we as democratic representatives should be the repository of those kind of views and I am not aware personally—I will check in my office—that I have been approached by this group seeking any change or acceleration in Government policy  and I do not know whether anyone else in the House has. That is the way we do things in this country and hopefully that is the way we will go back to.

Alexander Stafford: We have heard countless examples of people being stopped going to GPs or hospitals because of those protesters. We all know that the NHS is under great strain, with long waiting lists post covid. What steps can the Government take to try to get financial recompense for the NHS from the protesters so that the taxpayer is not subsidising those eco-extremists?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend expresses pithily the frustration and the cost of the protests to wider society. If only we had some way to recover that cost from those individuals. Sadly, that is unlikely under current legislation, although it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone who was caught up in the protests and missed some commercial opportunity might wish to consult their lawyers and see whether there was some method of seeking compensation.

James Daly: I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken to address this very serious issue. It is not protest, but deliberate acts by people going on to the public highway and endangering people’s lives. That is completely different from peaceful protest, which we all welcome. We are all committed to supporting the green agenda—that is separate from people putting others’ lives at risk. In line with other questions to my right hon. Friend, I ask whether he will take every step necessary if those people turn up on the M6, M5 or wherever else and urge the police to take every action necessary to remove them immediately from the public highway, otherwise somebody will get killed.

Kit Malthouse: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. As an esteemed officer of the court, he will know that, to get an injunction, we have made a case   exactly as he says. It is not about protest, but about safety on the highway—something that the Government have to put first. If it works, fine, but if things get worse, we will obviously have to consider what more action we must take.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Like my right hon. Friend, I watched “Good Morning Britain” this morning with disbelief, seeing an activist who claimed to speak for Insulate Britain and then admitted he had not insulated his own home, despite pushing others to do that. That is a level of foolishness I have not seen on the show since its former presenter left. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the highly disruptive and repeat protests are exactly the kind of measures that our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seeks to address and that it means that we will not have to seek such injunctions in future?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following requests from the police and a report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue about the balance we need to strike between the rights of protesters and those of the rest of us to go about our lives, the relatively mild measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will give the police much better powers to manage those sorts of protest. At the same time, it means that the vast majority of protests, which are lawful and often important, can take place in an environment in which everybody is safe and the protesters’ voice can be heard. I hope that, when the Bill returns from the other place, it will receive unequivocal support from across the House. Beyond the measures on protest, it contains important provisions to deal with violent crime and to support the most vulnerable in our society.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for his statement.

Hen Caging (Prohibition)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Henry Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the caging of commercially reared, egg-laying hens and pullets; and for connected purposes.
The people of Britain are some of the most caring and compassionate people in the world. We are a nation of people who care about justice, about each other and, of course, about animals. As the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs eloquently put it in his Department’s “Action Plan for Animal Welfare”:
“We are a nation of animal lovers.”
Therefore, we must ensure that we treat animals with compassion. The Bill will help do that by liberating millions of hens from inhumane cages.
The UK banned the use of battery cages for hens in 2012, but the ban did not extend to so-called enriched cages. Those cages are larger than conventional battery cages but still do not allow adequate space for the hens’ natural behaviours. When these behaviours cannot be performed, or are severely restricted, it can lead to frustration that is extremely detrimental to their wellbeing. That is why enriched cages have been condemned by animal welfare bodies. For example, the RSPCA released a statement with several organisations that stated:
“It is clear that such modified cages fail to properly meet the hens’ physical or behavioural needs. They…severely restrict many important physical activities, including running, flying, and wing-flapping; and do not permit unrestrained perching and dustbathing. The severe restriction of the hens’ ability to exercise is likely to lead to frustration, bone weakness and osteoporosis—clear indicators of poor welfare.”
Studies show that hens have a high level of intelligence, social and verbal complexity. They have individual personalities and have been shown to experience empathy when hearing the calls of their chicks. Despite this complexity and evident sentience, countless hens continue to languish in cramped cages that make it near impossible for them to express their natural behaviours and that cause extreme suffering.
One such hen, Beatrice, was just a few days old when she was put into a cage. With every day she spent there, she became more and more frail. She lost most of her feathers and became underweight, and her bones grew brittle. For two years she woke up to the same noisy, crowded misery. Luckily, Beatrice was rescued by a kind individual, but millions of hens around the world remain in cages that severely impact their welfare. Given my first name, I had considered subtitling my Bill “Hen’s Bill”, but I think it should be “Beatrice’s Bill”—Beatrice should get the credit.
Countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Germany have banned cages for hens. On 8 June 2021, Nevada became the ninth US state to ban the use of cages for laying hens, and just two weeks ago the EU committed to phasing out cages for animals by 2027. The Bill is therefore key to the UK’s claiming its place at the forefront of animal welfare standards and ending the unnecessary suffering of millions of hens like Beatrice.
The Bill has enormous public support. According to a report published in 2020 by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, 76% of consumers want the banning of cages to be a priority. Also last year, Compassion in World Farming published a poll, carried out by YouGov, that found that 88% of the British public believe that the use of cages in farming is cruel to animals. A petition on the Compassion in World Farming website that calls for cages to be banned in the UK currently has around 600,000 signatures.
In addition to the Bill having public support, most major retailers and egg producers are also in favour of going cage-free. All leading supermarkets—including Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Co-op and Lidl—are committed to selling only cage-free shell eggs by 2025. That applies not only to their own-brand shell eggs but to all shell eggs sold in stores. Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s are already 100% free-range for shell eggs.
Many major companies in the restaurant, manufacturing and catering sectors also have public commitments to transition to 100% cage-free egg use by 2025. Several leading restaurant chains—including PizzaExpress, Nando’s and Pret a Manger—are already sourcing only cage-free eggs, and more than three quarters of the sector is now committed to doing so. All those commitments apply to both shell and ingredient eggs.
Egg packers are also overwhelmingly moving towards a cage-free future. According to research by the Humane League UK, 71% of egg packers are either cage-free already, have publicly committed to being cage-free by 2025, or have publicly stated their intention to become a cage-free operation.
Unfortunately, despite the industry support, 38% of eggs in the UK still come from cages. That equates to approximately 16 million laying hens a year. The Humane League UK estimates that, even with corporate cage-free commitments, up to 8 million laying hens annually will remain in cages throughout the country, and it anticipates that cage eggs will still be sold in a number of sectors in which either it is unclear where ingredients are coming from, or organisations have not signed up to cage-free commitments, as is the case with many major pet-food companies, wholesalers and single-location restaurants. Without this Bill, therefore, hens will continue to suffer on an enormous scale.
Several major companies, including Nestlé—which is headquartered in my constituency—Greggs and Premier Foods are now calling for the backing of legislation to ensure that no eggs come from caged hens. For example, Nestlé stated:
“Farm animals deserve decent welfare standards. Nestlé supports a phasing out of caged systems for all egg laying hens, building on industry efforts to date. We’re proud to source 100% cage free eggs for all our food products in the UK.”
Similarly, the president of Kraft Heinz Northern Europe, said:
“We are proud to have committed to ending the use of cages for laying hens in our supply chain. It’s now time for policy makers to follow suit so that all laying hens are spared this suffering.”
Building on that message, the Sustainable Restaurant Association stated that it
“recognises the progress that the industry, including many of the 12,000 restaurant sites that we work with, have made in moving away from sourcing caged-eggs, but the reality is that this cruel method of production will only cease when the government enacts legislation.”
Moving towards a cage-free future for hens is a goal that has widespread parliamentary support throughout this House. Combined with the Government’s stated commitment to animal welfare and to review the policy on cages, that represents near-total public, private and parliamentary support.
Of course, there will be some up-front costs associated with a move away from cages and towards systems that better safeguard animal welfare standards. In the beginning, farmers will need the support of the Government  to transition, which is why I am proud that the 2019 Conservative party manifesto explicitly stated our commitment to support farmers to work in a way that safeguards
“high standards of animal welfare.”
In March last year, the Government elaborated on that by saying that
“we are developing publicly funded schemes for English farmers to provide public goods—including animal welfare enhancements”. —[Official Report, 16 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 252WH.]
To conclude, I congratulate the Government on the many steps they are taking to promote animal welfare. I am proud that my party is leading the way on a range of new laws, including the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Such laws will introduce profound changes that will positively affect the lives of countless vulnerable animals. The purpose of my Bill is to continue that great work through a ban on cages for hens in the UK.
My Bill will end the needless suffering of millions of caged hens like Beatrice in the UK. It is economically viable and will bring our laws into line with the strength  of public feeling about this issue. It will also prevent companies from being undercut by businesses with lower animal welfare standards and help to confirm Britain’s position as a world leader in animal welfare. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
“The way we treat animals reflects our values and the kind of people we are.”
I could not agree more, which is why I urge the Government and this House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Henry Smith, Sir David Amess, Sir Roger Gale, Dr Lisa Cameron, Caroline Lucas, Christian Wakeford, Mr John Baron, Rosie Cooper, Giles Watling and Tracey Crouch present the Bill.
Henry Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 166).

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 8 June 2021 (Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 1 - Compensation payments to customers of London Capital & Finance PLC

Peter Grant: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc under this section, and in the light of that assessment, sets out the following—
(a) an assessment of the regulatory failures that gave rise to the need to compensate the customers of London Capital & Finance plc;
(b) measures the Government is taking to prevent such regulatory failures in the future;
(c) the reasons why the Government is providing compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc but not the customers of other failed investment firms;
(d) criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and
(e) the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this section at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament that assesses the impact of the Government compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
It is a pleasure to open this afternoon’s debate and to speak in favour of amendment 1, which is in my name. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament within six months of the Bill coming into force, with an assessment of the impact of the payment of compensation to customers of LCF. Crucially, it would require the Secretary of State in that report to give an assessment of: the regulatory failures that made the London Capital & Finance compensation scheme necessary; the measures that the Government are taking to prevent such regulatory failures; the reasons why victims of other failed investment schemes, of which there are many, are not being compensated; the criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and, finally, the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this scheme at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
The amendment does not seek to change the actual scheme at all, and we will support the Bill on Third Reading as we have supported it at other stages, but it does seek to address the single biggest problem with the Bill, which is that it does not go nearly far enough. The amendment echoes amendment 7 in Committee and its intention is similar to amendment 1 in Committee, which was tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. Neither of those amendments was pushed to a vote in Committee, but  both raised issues of significant importance to thousands of people, who between them have almost certainly lost more than £1 billion through investment scams and whose plight the Bill currently fails to address.
My amendment will not bring the investors justice, because the Bill was drafted in such a way that an amendment that sought to bring justice for them would have been inadmissible, but it would offer the first small step towards recognising that the £1 billion scandal of pension investment mis-selling and the catalogue of regulatory failures that allowed that scandal to continue for so long have left thousands of hard-working people potentially destitute because their retirement plans have been stolen from them. The Government have yet to offer a credible reason for rejecting my amendment, so, given the importance of the issues that it seeks to address, I do intend to test the will of the House on this question at the end of the debate.
There has been virtually no opposition to the Bill from MPs or those who have given evidence to the Bill Committee. There has, however, been strong criticism across the board about what the Bill does not do—that is, it does not do nearly enough. It places no obligation on anyone to sort out the mess created not only by London Capital & Finance, but by other scams—such as Premier FX, Blackmore Bond, Henley, Connaught and many others—that were allowed to happen. It does nothing to explain how Companies House, the Financial Conduct Authority, company auditors and in some cases the police either did not have the powers they needed, or in some cases failed miserably to use the powers they had, to prevent these scams from happening and to protect innocent, unsuspecting investors.
In my earlier contributions on the Bill, I have made frequent references to the collapse of Blackmore Bond for the likely loss of £46 million of other people’s pension funds. I will not repeat everything that I have said before, but for the benefit of Members who have not had a chance to catch up with the full proceedings, let me just say that the similarities between London Capital & Finance and Blackmore Bond are many and they are striking. According to Library reports, the owners and directors of the entire Blackmore Bond group of companies made about £800,000 signing up investors for LCF. Blackmore Bond then used Surge Financial—a company that is now under criminal investigation as part of the fallout of the LCF investigation—to drum up leads for its mis-selling of mini bonds.
In previous stages, the Government have claimed that the exact details of London Capital & Finance’s mis-selling and ultimate collapse were unique, and that that is why there is a compensation scheme for its victims but not for the victims of other schemes.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman is making some good points and has been very vocal in this Chamber to draw attention to the bonds of a similar nature that were also mis-sold. However is not subsection (5)(a) of his amendment, which would require,
“an assessment of the regulatory failures”
already covered by the Gloster report? Is not that exactly what that does? Has the purpose of his amendment not already been achieved through that in-depth and welcome report?

Peter Grant: It may well have been achieved by the Government’s response to the report, but the Gloster report achieved nothing; it only achieves change if the Government accept its recommendations. An amendment that was not pushed to a vote at an earlier stage of proceedings would have required the Government to give regular reports back to Parliament as to what they are doing with the Gloster report. Regardless of whether that amendment had been carried, I would hope that the Government will still do that.
The Government’s explanation for not even considering similar schemes for other mis-selling is that the exact details of London Capital & Finance’s mis-selling were unique and that none of the other mini bond scams were identical in every way. That is probably true because no two investment scams are identical in every way. The crooks will always find a slightly different way to get more money out of the victims, or to avoid whatever detection and prevention schemes are being developed, but the differences between the two companies are tiny compared to the similarities.

Gareth Thomas: I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Is not the problem the fact that we are being asked by the Government to believe that, as a result of the Gloster report, the FCA has fundamentally changed and that there is not going to be a problem ever again with how the FCA regulates? Is there not a need for another body to keep oversight of the quality of financial regulation, and perhaps in particular over whether the FCA continues to do its job properly in the future?

Peter Grant: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which is well worth consideration. I do not want to go into the detail of how we should fix what is wrong with the Financial Conduct Authority just now. The first thing that we have to do is recognise that it ain’t working, and regardless of what promises and assurances we have had, it still is not working. Whether that is best dealt with by putting yet another monitor on top of the regulator to monitor it, I do not know, but there has to be recognition that the existing scheme of regulation, as it is carried out by the Financial Conduct Authority, is simply not fit for purpose. The same applies to the parts of the regulatory environment that fall under other Government Departments. It is not only Treasury Ministers who have such responsibilities.
Let me return to the similarities between London Capital & Finance and Blackmore Bond. They both misled their victims into believing that their activities were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The only difference was that London Capital & Finance had a registration for something else, which it hid behind. Blackmore Bond did not have a registration of its own, but it hid behind the registration of other companies, which knowingly allowed their names to be associated with the marketing and selling of its products. The intention in both cases was the same, and that was to mislead—effectively, to con the customers. The results were the same: thousands of people lost everything. I do not understand why there is such resistance in the Government to saying that the remedy should be the same, or even to consider that the remedy should be the same.
In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of London Capital & Finance, the Financial Conduct Authority took steps to outlaw the marketing of mini bonds to retail investors. It outlawed the very practice that was at the cornerstone of London Capital & Finance’s business plan, as it was for Blackmore Bond and many others. There is still no explanation as to why, when the FCA was able to act so swiftly and decisively to close the door after the horses had gone, it took no effective action to stop those mis-sales years earlier, after it had been given credible and persuasive evidence of exactly what was happening in the mini bond market.
In earlier stages, I have raised concerns that there were other Blackmore Bonds just waiting to come to our attention. There were probably other mini bond-based businesses about to collapse. There were probably other investors about to face the awful reality that they had lost everything. That might be happening even as we discuss this Bill.
Last week, none other than Private Eye magazine reported that another mini bond company, Moregreen Capital Ltd, had written to its investors asking them to forgo their next interest payment. That might be the starting signs of severe trouble. I cannot confirm anything that was in the Private Eye article, and I cannot confirm very much from the public domain about Moregreen Capital Ltd in the way that I could for Blackmore Bond, for the simple reason that Moregreen Capital has failed to file its accounts for the last two years. Its only published accounts were so early in its trading history that today they are almost certainly useless. I should also make it clear, as is often the case, that company names can be similar and that that Moregreen Capital Ltd is unrelated to some other companies with Moregreen in their name. There might well be perfectly valid reasons for the action that Moregreen Capital has taken recently. There could be good reasons why it stopped publishing its accounts, or there might be yet another group of investors who are in the first stage of a journey that sees them lose everything with, as things stand, no prospect of compensation. The best-case scenario for Moregreen Capital’s investors is that they have nothing to worry about—that their investments are safe and that they will eventually get all the funds they were promised. But even if the best-case scenario pans out with Moregreen Capital, it will only be a matter of time before the next mini bond scandal rears its ugly head. Action has been taken to prevent that precise form of financial scam being allowed again, but we need action to anticipate and predict what scams will arise in future and to prevent them before they are allowed to take place. We have to recognise that thousands of people are victims of crime. They were the victims of criminal activity and they should be compensated in the same way as other victims of criminal activity have been compensated.
The amendment does not require the Government to establish an additional scheme, but it does require them to get this debate started. We in this Parliament are ultimately responsible for the regulatory framework in these islands. We collectively, and our predecessors, are ultimately responsible for having to set in place and to enforce a regulatory environment that would have protected our constituents from losing everything.
One of the examples I cited earlier was a retired military person who told Blackmore Bond’s directors, “This is my military pension—I can’t afford to lose it.”  They took it and they lost it. That person deserves compensation. They have no chance of getting compensation out of Blackmore Bond. They are not covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Surely the Government have to agree that there is a case to be looked at in such examples. We have to look at a wider compensation scheme, in the same way we have for people who lose their holiday because their travel agent goes bust. Losing a holiday, which has happened to a lot of people over the past couple of years, is not a nice thing to happen—it is a distressing thing to happen—but when people lose their holiday, at worst they lose money they could afford to spend on a holiday; when people lose their pension they are losing their livelihood for the rest of their life. There has to be better provision for compensation for those who, through no fault of their own, see their pension, their plan for retirement and the future of their family’s financial security wiped out by charlatans who right now are taking advantage of a regulatory environment that is open to abuse.

Rehman Chishti: On the allocation of compensation to different individuals, all victims are victims of this scam, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that priority should be given to those who have suffered the most when it comes to how the Government move forward in the allocation of compensation for their losses?

Peter Grant: We have to remember that we are dealing with a large number of people. It is not just one company with 50 or 60 people who are victims; there are thousands of victims that we know of and probably many more than we do not know of, and the amounts of money that they have lost individually are life-changing for them. Someone who has worked for 20 years on a Member of Parliament’s salary probably has £20,000 or £30,000 they can afford to lose; these people did not. The amounts they have lost individually are significant; the amount that has been stolen collectively, as I said, is almost certainly over £1 billion. If people stole £1 billion out of a bank vault, law enforcement would not stop until every last one of them was behind bars for a very long time, and would, if need be, change the rules to make sure that it could not happen again. We should regard the theft of £1 billion out of people’s pension funds just as seriously as the theft of £1 billion of gold bullion out of the back of a Securicor van. All this amendment asks is that the Government recognise that as an issue and start to put answers in place as to how they can protect our constituents from falling victim to these scams in future.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate these issues. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is interesting. Certainly I very much support the broad principle of greater scrutiny of the FCA, but I cannot support his amendment because I do not feel that it is effective, not least regarding the issues I raised earlier. Some of the issues in it have already been addressed. The regulatory failures were clearly identified in the excellent Gloster report. The report also—this was welcome—named individuals in the FCA who had failed and who tried to have their names redacted from it and exempted from any specific criticism. One of the cultural issues with the FCA is the lack of individual accountability either in the organisation itself or the organisations they regulate.
In subsection (5)(e) the hon. Gentleman talks about why we are compensating only 80% of the losses of individuals who lost money in London Capital & Finance. That speaks to a broad principle. Many of the investments people make have to be subject to the principle of caveat emptor. Especially with a relatively high-risk investment, it is incumbent on any investor to look at it and judge the risk for themselves. Some form of protection from the regulator is also required, but the regulator cannot be all things to all people and cannot be in all places at once. I had a constituent come to me who had lost a significant amount of money in London Capital & Finance investments, and they were quite clear that they understood that as they were getting an 8% return, whereas in a bank they would probably get 0.5% maximum in interest, there was a risk involved in such investment. It is quite obvious to most people that that is the case, whether they are sophisticated or unsophisticated investors. The broad principle of an investor having to look at the investment and judge for themselves is very important.

Sammy Wilson: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he also accept that many small investors were actually misled—the Gloster report shows this—by the advice they were given by people in the FCA who indicated that the company was covered by the FCA and therefore they were guaranteed to get £5,000 if the firm went bust? That information was wrong, so some people made an informed investment decision on the wrong information supplied by the regulatory agency.

Kevin Hollinrake: Anybody reading the report will be appalled by the regulator’s performance in this case, given not just the number of complaints about LCF but the lack of joined-up thinking within the FCA. This was some years down the line; it happened after Andrew Bailey had taken over at the FCA. He knew there were problems right at the start, but there was no joining of the dots and there were the clear allegations of inappropriate conduct within LCF. The independent financial adviser who drew attention to it was a very competent person; he was not simply raising the issue saying, “I don’t like this company.”
The IFA was called Neil Liversidge. He wrote to the FCA setting out exactly what was going wrong with the designation of unsophisticated investors as sophisticated, the encouragement to class themselves as sophisticated, and where some of the investments were going. It was pretty clear what the problem was at LCF, and the FCA failed to act. That is simply unacceptable. That is why I welcome the compensation. However, it still has to be down to investors to make an educated decision. Certainly my constituent and others I have seen could see that this was not a Government gilt they were investing in; there were obviously some risks attached.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend says that he welcomes the compensation that is being made. Of course, so do I and so does everybody else here, but linked to the question of compensation is justice and the delay in bringing the perpetrators to account through the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. I would be grateful if the Minister or my hon. Friend could say why there is such a delay in to bringing those perpetrators  to account, because people want compensation but they also want justice and to have the perpetrators brought to account.

Kevin Hollinrake: I could not agree more. The UK has a pretty poor record in terms of bringing forward fraud prosecutions. There are a number of things we need to do that are not really within the scope of this Bill. Not the least of them —the Government are committed to this—is bringing forward an offence of a failure to prevent an economic crime. That would make it far easier for the SFO to bring forward prosecutions. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s joining my campaign to bring that legislation forward, because it would make a huge difference to the SFO’s ability to bring forward speedy prosecutions.

Rehman Chishti: I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign to ensure that justice is done in this case.

Kevin Hollinrake: That is very welcome.
The key point in the amendment is about oversight. I am concerned that the FCA is not as accountable as it could be to this House. With repatriation, a number of regulations and regulatory oversight of the FCA have now passed back to us domestically whereas before there was accountability through the EU institutions. I am concerned that we have proper oversight of what the FCA does. The hon. Member for Glenrothes and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) are quite right: the jury is still out on the FCA. It has made some bold claims that it is reforming and becoming more effective. I welcome the fact that only a couple of weeks ago it set out some clear targets for a reduction in the number of investors investing in high-risk investment and being subject to scams. There are some specific criteria that the House can now hold it to account for; I am just not clear how we do so. I can see how the Treasury does so, but it is important that the House can, too.
In the work that I have done on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, we have seen numerous cases in which the FCA has not been proactive or used the mechanisms at its disposal to sanction the people responsible. That is simply unacceptable. The FCA must be a much more proactive organisation and, for it to be held account for such proactivity, we need a clear line of responsibility between it and the House and its Members. The amendment is a good attempt, but not one that I can support.

Gareth Thomas: I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and his concern, which I alluded to in my intervention, that the Government, and certainly the FCA, appear to be saying, “Don’t worry—we’ve had a change of leadership and everything is going to be all right now. You don’t need to worry about the quality of the regulation of investment firms going forward, or the implementation and enforcement of consumer financial regulation, whether in this case or more generally.” I have some sympathy with the point of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that we should be sceptical about  such a claim. It is good that Treasury Ministers will be having a more regular dialogue with the FCA, partly as a result of this scandal.
As the House knows, I have taken a particular interest in the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria. That is very different from the case of LCF, so it would not be appropriate for me to go into the particular details, but there are parallels in the treatment of Liverpool Victoria consumers and those of LCF products. Some of those parallels relate to the culture that appears to exist within the FCA. The all-party parliamentary group for mutuals received a letter from the FCA and one from the PRA, and they reveal that there have been almost 60 meetings between the regulators and the board of Liverpool Victoria, but not one meeting with its consumer-owners on its demutualisation. I wonder whether there is not a frog in hot water-type problem here, with the FCA so close to the Liverpool Victoria board in this case—and potentially to other financial firms—that it fails, perhaps accidently, to do its job on behalf of consumers with sufficient robustness.
I welcome the Dame Elizabeth Gloster report, which was excoriating in its findings. To pick out some key concerns, it said that there were “unclear” policy documents for use by FCA staff, a
“flawed approach to the Perimeter”
and a “failure to consider” the behaviour of particular businesses holistically. It also said that there was insufficient training of staff and pointed to confusion between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the FCA—our regulators—over the handling of particular issues.
I appreciate that the FCA has not only had a change of personnel but brought forward proposals for a consumer duty to try to rebuild some confidence. However, my problem with the duty, which it consulted on until the end of July, is that there is no sense of understanding the difference between consumers who also own a business—a mutual in this case—and consumers per se, or a willingness to take additional actions for consumers who are also owners. I worry about whether that additional duty will be robust enough.

Rehman Chishti: I really appreciate all the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on this matter. On the consumer duty, my concern, raised with me by local residents, is that the company was allowed to continue trading without investigation in 2015 after warnings of malpractice and maladministration. With his expertise and experience, does he think that, whether through the consumer duty or further regulation following the Gloster inquiry, the measures proposed would prevent what happened in 2015?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Member invests an awful lot of confidence in me to predict what might happen, but I can well understand a Conservative looking to the Labour party for such guidance. I certainly hope that the consumer duty and better enforcement will help to prevent such a terrible debacle from happening again, because, as the House has rightly noted, many good people have lost an awful lot of money and deserve the compensation that the Bill will provide. However, many others who have been victims of similar cases would have also merited better protection from the FCA.
I will ponder aloud, in response to the Minister having some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes and my right hon. Friend the  Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) in Committee, whether there is a need for a smaller body that does not just concentrate on the FCA but looks at some of the strategic issues around consumer protection and financial products in particular, and has a small number of inquiries each year looking at the performance of regulators in that regard, in part to help prevent a repeat of the LCF debacle.
As a model for such a body—I do not suggest it is perfect—I put on the Floor of the House, so to speak, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which the House uses to consider how our international aid money is being spent and the strategic challenges in that. It is a small, dedicated body that operates in a completely different sphere from this, but it produces important and useful reports that are used by the relevant Department, experts in the sector and, crucially, the International Development Committee. I wonder whether such a body would be appropriate to keep the PRA and FCA’s feet to the fire. It could be used by the Treasury Committee, and indeed other Committees of the House, to assess the quality of consumer financial regulation and the job that the FCA, PRA and other regulators are doing to protect consumers from any repeat of the LCF debacle.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman’s idea of an independent committee should be considered among the wider tools to get the right support for consumers. Of course, I have admiration for him because, being a fair man, I see he also went to the University of Wales Aberystwyth, and we were taught at university always to respect other colleagues’ talents. That is why I respect his expertise on this matter.

Gareth Thomas: I am not sure I need to respond other than to thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am sure that many other people in the House often get frustrated, as I do, at unaccountable independent bodies or arm’s length bodies, and I might mention not least the FCA, possibly the Environment Agency and perhaps the NHS as well. Would it not be better for the FCA to have a direct line of accountability to those who are elected by the people of this country and for the body the hon. Member recommends to be made up of parliamentarians from either House?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Member may be right. I simply put out the idea at this stage, and I hope Ministers will be sympathetic to it, that we should not just accept the sense that, following Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report, the payment of compensation and the introduction by the FCA of this new consumer duty, everything is suddenly all right in the world of consumer financial regulation. Perhaps Ministers on the Treasury Bench are inadvertently suggesting that. I think another step needs to be taken to hold the feet of regulators to the fire.
I will briefly raise two other concerns about financial regulation and some of the lessons that need to be taken from the LCF debacle, which the amendment from the hon. Member for Glenrothes helpfully gives me the opportunity to raise. The first is the idea that all the information available to the boards and the management of companies that has to be shared with the FCA and  the PRA from time to time should be regarded as commercially sensitive. Clearly, there is genuinely commercially sensitive information that it is right for companies and businesses to keep for themselves. However, I fear—certainly in the case of Liverpool Victoria, which I have been looking at—that the excuse that information is financially sensitive is being used to deny consumers’ legitimate rights to know what the future holds for the business in which they have invested their savings or money. I gently suggest that that topic is worthy of a review in itself, potentially with changes to regulatory practice and, if need be, to legislation.
Lastly, the existence in legislation at the moment of provisions for so-called independent experts to look at the decisions that boards are taking in the context of demutualisations are a recipe for regulatory failure. In the case of Liverpool Victoria, independent experts are being appointed by the board, paid by the board and briefed by the board. Obviously, it is fairly easy to predict what the outcome of the independent experts’ work is going to be: to recommend largely what the board wants to happen. That is another issue that needs to be looked at.
I put those points on the record to suggest that Ministers should not be complacent about the quality of the FCA’s performance. There needs to be a bit more of a robust challenge and a look again at how financial regulation works.

Pat McFadden: I want to use the opportunity provided by the amendment to raise a few points, particularly about clause 1, and to put them to the Minister. I thank Dame Elizabeth Gloster and both the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee for the work they have done on this issue.
The issues covered by the Bill have been widely set out in debates on Second Reading and in Committee. They include: the wholly deficient practices at the FCA that meant that hundreds of reports of harm were not acted on, which was described by Dame Elizabeth Gloster as an “egregious” failure of the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties; the fact that this failure allowed LCF to continue in operation for years longer than it might otherwise have, thereby multiplying the harm to investors; the reassurance at one point from the FCA that what was happening was not a scam; the impact of the halo effect in having a regulated firm selling unregulated products, leading unsuspecting investors to believe that these products were far safer than they actually were; the loss of a whistleblower’s letter three years before the firm’s collapse, and the damning conclusion from Dame Elizabeth Gloster that the loss of that letter probably did not make any difference, because the FCA was so dysfunctional that, even if it had not been lost, it would not have been acted on; the repeated failure to join the dots and the treating of each LCF transgression—for example, on its use of financial promotions—as an isolated incident, when instead it was a pattern of behaviour designed to use its regulated status to bolster confidence in unregulated products; and the public disagreement between Dame Elizabeth and the Governor of the Bank of England about the issues of responsibility and personal culpability.
I served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that
“a buck that does not stop with an individual stops nowhere.”
That quote has been much used in the debate about this issue, which has raised sharply the limitations of collective accountability and the question of whether in this case the buck really stopped with anyone. Of course, most importantly of all, there is the issue of the distress and the financial loss to investors and the question of how they should be compensated. All of this has led to the Government stepping in with this Bill to authorise compensation up to a certain level for investors.
Based on the amendment, I want to put a number of questions to the Minister arising from the Bill. First, why has compensation been set at 80% of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme maximum of £86,000, not the full level? That is probably the main outstanding concern of LCF investors, who are grateful that compensation will come but who cannot understand the 80% cap given the manifest failures set out in Dame Elizabeth’s report. Are the Government completely fixed on this 80% figure, or is there any prospect of that being reconsidered?

Rehman Chishti: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will of course raise the same point with the Minister in due course. The right hon. Gentleman says that the victims will of course welcome the compensation coming their way, but the point raised with me by those who have suffered a loss is whether the Government can look to prioritise those who have suffered the most due to their loss. There has been a lot of data gathering by the FSCS, the FCA and the Serious Fraud Office, so that should be easily apparent. What is his view about ensuring that compensation is quickly given out and prioritised to those who have suffered the most?

Pat McFadden: The hon. Member raises a very fair point. It has already been referenced in the debate that this is not just about amounts, but about the timescale, and we all want the Government and whoever is administering this scheme to be able to get on with it.

Sammy Wilson: I understand the point, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that defining those who have suffered the most could be quite difficult? Are those who have suffered the most those who have lost the most, or perhaps those who are not all that well-off and have found that they had lost all of their savings, even though all of their savings would not have been the same as the loss of some of the bigger investors? Does he accept that that is a difficult definition?

Pat McFadden: The right hon. Member raises a very fair point. If we pluck a sum of money out of the air, it could be a lot of money to one person and perhaps less to somebody else, depending on their wealth.
Let me return to the questions for the Minister arising from the amendment and the Bill. The second is the important question of where the decision to compensate the LCF investors leaves investors in other firms where regulatory failure is alleged. Where has the bar now been set for future compensation in the event of regulatory failure? The taxpayer cannot stand behind every investment loss. Some investors will make money and some will lose. That is in the nature of a market economy. However, the question of compensation arises when there is a   clear regulatory failure, because that is considered to be a different matter. Having come up with this scheme, where do the Government now draw the line?
How can we be sure this will not happen again? There are two aspects to this question. The first is the role of the regulator. The FCA is going through a transformation programme designed to ensure that changes are made to prevent a similar thing from happening in the future.

Peter Grant: There is clearly a need to specify which kinds of investment losses might be compensated, and which ones will not be. Given that the Financial Conduct Authority has outlawed the targeting of mini-bonds at retail investors, is that a clear indication that something was fundamentally flawed with all selling of those bonds, whether it was done by LCF, Blackmore Bond, or anybody else?

Pat McFadden: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. On how we can be sure that this will not happen again, and the transformation programme, it is to be expected that companies would go through such a programme, given the damning nature of Dame Elizabeth’s findings. There is also, however—and this is not just about this specific case—understandable public scepticism when a scandal happens, people talk about lessons being learned, there are some changes to management, and the organisation moves on. How do we ensure that, while understandable, such public scepticism is not justified in this case because something different is happening, and that we will not end up back here, some time in the future, debating another investment scam that was not spotted and acted on in time?
The second aspect to the question of how we can ensure that this does not happen again relates to legislative protections. This scam was promoted by a lot of online advertising. The online safety Bill is coming up, and at the moment paid-for advertising is excluded from that. Why should that be the case? Surely the LCF case shows that paid-for advertising must be included. As the Minister will be aware, there is a growing coalition behind the argument that the online safety Bill must offer greater protection against financial scams and fraud, and that is bound to be a major issue as the Bill goes through the House.
That issue is important, because consumers are being targeted every day with adverts, text messages, emails, and phone calls geared either to obtaining their financial details, or promising get-rich-quick schemes. As covid has pushed more of our lives online, it is imperative that legislation keeps pace with the increased use of online scams that are designed to strip people of their money. It is becoming more and more difficult for consumers to ascertain the difference between a genuine approach and a scam approach. We in this House have a legislative duty to keep pace with what organised criminals are trying to do.

Rehman Chishti: rose—

Pat McFadden: I am coming to the end of my remarks; I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I leave the Minister with this: is it not better to try to stop people being ripped off in the first place, than to have to ask the taxpayer or, as in clause 2, members of pension schemes, to compensate people after such scams have already happened? I will leave it there, although I will later have a few remarks and questions about clause 2.

Guy Opperman: It is an honour and privilege to respond at Report of this important Bill, which deals with the compensation due to many of our constituents up and down the country. I pass on apologies from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who is on a ministerial trip to the United States on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.
As the House will be aware, Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report has already been taken through. It is a detailed report that deals with the regulatory failures that led to the collapse of LCF. The Government have accepted all four of the Gloster recommendations, and the FCA has committed to implementing all nine of the recommendations that were addressed to it, and to report publicly on the progress of those vital reforms.
Progress has already been made in implementing those recommendations. For example, the Treasury has consulted on proposals to regulate so-called non-transferable debt securities. In respect of regular reporting, hon. Members should be aware that the FCA report on the transformation programme takes place every six months. Its last report took place in July 2021, and the next report will be in spring next year.
Colleagues have raised a number of different matters, and I will attempt briefly to deal with them. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) recommended to Treasury colleagues that parliamentarians should hold the FCA to account directly, and I am sure my Treasury colleagues will respond to that proposal by letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made some comments, and it is right that the FCA needs to be more proactive. To be fair, its new chief executive, with whom I know my hon. Friend is familiar, is being more proactive, and there is proper oversight on an ongoing basis. Several colleagues mentioned the online harms Bill. I have engaged with and met Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, as have colleagues from other parts of Government. Those individual companies need to step up to the plate, because it is very much in their domain to make real change.

Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me briefly to intervene. He said he has had conversations with those social media companies. I sat on the Home Affairs Committee when we discussed online harms. What was the response of those social media companies, and what will it take to get them to do the right thing?

Guy Opperman: It will take strong pressure by fantastically good constituency MPs such as my hon. Friend, and others, so that those companies realise that they have an obligation to do the right thing in respect of the many constituents we represent. Clearly, though, these are matters to be considered by the Government, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be making representations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Let me turn briefly to the amendment. A lot of the speeches made had nothing to do with the amendment, and it is important to avoid creating the misconception that the Government will stand behind all bad investments in the future, where FSCS protection does not apply. The Government will establish a scheme based on the  level of FSCS compensation, capped at £85,000. We have carefully considered the issues and are satisfied that the individual circumstances surrounding LCF are completely unique. Other mini-bond firms have failed, but LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies. As the House will know, only three Government compensation schemes have been established in the past three decades, for Barlow Clowes, Equitable Life, and now LCF, despite many firms failing over that period. This type of intervention is the exception, not the rule.
Although the amendment is legitimate and considered to be principled and practical, there is a practical reality that the FCA is already reporting and is held to account by the Treasury. With respect, I therefore ask the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) to withdraw his amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made,

The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 292.
Question accordingly negatived.
Third Reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Guy Opperman.)

Pat McFadden: We have just had a short debate on an amendment that was largely focused on clause 1. Before we finish the Commons stages, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, mainly relating to clause 2 and pensions.
We discussed some of these issues in Committee. Clause 2 imposes a levy on the pension schemes to pay for the consequences of the Dalriada case, which means that the pension fund compensation scheme has to raise what Ministers expect to be around £300 million. I have a few questions about that.
My first question is about the flat-rate way of raising such levies. It leaves schemes with large numbers of members, many of whom have small pension pots—for example, those on auto-enrolment schemes—paying a significant proportion of the levy, even though they are run in a completely honest way that has never been near any kind of pension fraud. Have the Government considered a more proportionate way of raising such levies, to protect pension scheme members with very small pots?
My second question is about the relationship between the greater pension freedoms in recent years and the risks of scams and financial fraud. The advent of these freedoms has resulted in a number of examples where unsuspecting pensioners have been persuaded to transfer their pensions in ways that were not in their interests or, even worse, that led to fraud and a loss of their hard-earned savings. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has shown significant interest in the issue, and it has received estimates from the Pension Scams Industry Group that 40,000 people may have lost up to £10 billion since the pension freedoms were introduced in 2015.
Thirdly, great fanfare was made of advice and guidance when the pension freedoms legislation was introduced, but take-up has been very low, and efforts by the Department to improve it have not radically changed the proportion of people accessing good advice. Without good advice, pension scheme members are left much more vulnerable to unscrupulous sales pitches or, alternatively, bad decisions that are clearly not in their interests but may be in the interests of the financial adviser advising them. What are the Minister and his colleagues doing to change the situation with regard to pensions advice?
Finally, those accessing their pensions under the age of 55 are subject to a hefty tax charge, but sometimes people are persuaded to do this because they are advised that there is no tax charge and they will not have to pay any tax. They then find themselves not just victims of a scam but pursued by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. What can the Minister do to persuade HMRC to take account of the difference between someone acting on false information and someone knowing that they will incur a tax charge? I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions before we finish.
In my last contribution to the debates on this Bill, I want to thank the Minister and his colleague the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for their consideration of the points that have been raised throughout by hon. Members. I also thank the Clerks and the Bill team for their responses to inquiries. We will support the Bill because we want this compensation to be paid out, but I hope that the Minister will consider some of the questions we have raised about the nature of scams and the need to do more to protect consumers. Although this Bill will go through tonight, I have no doubt that consumer protection, frauds, scams and the amount of things happening online will be raised again when we debate the Online Safety Bill in the weeks and months to come.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Treasury deserves great credit for introducing this compensation scheme in the first place. It is a pity that the Minister responsible—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—is not on duty today, because he deserves personal credit for that, but the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is an excellent stand-in.
Warren Buffett once said that what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. The key lesson that we have to learn from this sorry episode—a damning assessment of the Financial Conduct Authority’s capability as a regulator at the time—is the need for scrutiny of the regulator. As many Members know, I do quite a lot of work trying to hold banks to account in the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, but I still do not know how this place holds the regulator to account. I know that the Treasury has some direct influence, and the Treasury Committee can write reports and conduct inquiries, but I still do not know of a direct mechanism that can be used by this House to address regulation and regulations.
Now that we have repatriated the oversight function from the European Union, various different suggestions have been made as to how that might happen in this House. One of the most interesting proposals is for something along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee—a regulatory accounts committee, supported by a version of the National Audit Office, so that professionals would sit behind a parliamentary committee made up of elected parliamentarians. Whoever holds the regulator to account should be accountable to the public; they should not be an independent body of appointees. There must be a mechanism to make sure that the regulator does the right thing, makes good on its future commitments and ensures that episodes like this do not happen again.
The Gloster report, which led to the compensation scheme that we are putting in place today, made very damning criticisms of the then governor of the FCA, Andrew Bailey, who is now the Governor of the Bank of England. I have experience of dealing with the FCA and Andrew Bailey—I asked him four times whether he had followed the FCA’s own whistleblowing procedures when handling the case of Sally Masterton’s whistleblower complaint with HBOS Reading and Lloyds. He refused to answer that question, which I find horrendous. Both the FCA and the whistleblowing legislation were established by statute, yet we as parliamentarians cannot hold the regulator—which we put in place—to account. We need a better system of regulatory oversight.

Sally-Ann Hart: Residents in Hastings and Rye have been victims of London Capital & Finance. Does my hon. Friend agree that if people do something in good faith, get the right advice and the right system is in place, there should be measures in place to ensure that they do not end up on the back foot?

Kevin Hollinrake: As I said on Report, it is incumbent on investors to check out investments. If something is paying out 8% when they can get 0.5% from their bank, they must say, “Well, this is more risky than simply putting it in the bank.” We cannot lose sight of that  principle. However, the least we can expect is a regulator that is proactive. In 2015, a number of people were raising concerns about LC&F, including an independent financial adviser who wrote in detail to the FCA to say what was happening at LC&F, but the FCA did nothing for four years, which is totally unacceptable. People deserve a higher standard of regulation.
On the Online Safety Bill, London Capital & Finance spent £20 million on Google advertising. It is clear that platforms are playing a role in this. This was not even seen as a scam. We can argue that it was a scam, but it was to some extent regulated by the FCA. UK Finance has released a report today saying that online scams are now a national security risk. We must take seriously its calls for more action to be taken. The Online Safety Bill must be the right place to legislate to require the platforms to at least establish whether the investment companies—the people who are advertising investments—are bona fide organisations, and not simply people impersonating them.
With that, I will conclude. I am keen to hear the Minister’s words in his summing up.

Peter Grant: The SNP will, as we indicated, support the Bill on Third Reading. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate today. There were a number of interesting contributions on my amendment. I understand why some people did not feel they could support it in its entirety, but I was very clear that across the House the intention behind the amendment has a considerable amount of support. I hope the Government will take that on board.
The second point that became clear during the debate is that the regulatory failures that allowed London Capital & Finance to happen were not restricted to the FCA. There were catastrophic failures in that organisation—that is now undeniable—but they were not the only failures. It was not only the FCA that let down investors in some of the other scam companies mentioned during consideration of the Bill. Companies House did not enforce the requirements to publish company information. It says it is not its job to verify that companies submit the names of directors, for example. If that is not the responsibility of Companies House, whose responsibility is it?
Nobody enforces the rules that require companies to publish their annual accounts and other critical information on time. Companies and directors can have literally dozens of yellow card suspensions against a company, but then they are lifted and nothing ever happens to them. Those requirements are essential if people with an interest in a company are to get an early warning that things are going wrong. If those requirements are not observed, companies can be sunk before anybody has a chance to do anything about it.
I appreciate that part of that issue is not within the remit of the Treasury, but I hope that what comes out of these proceedings is that colleagues on the Treasury Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will have plenty of new material to work on. Clearly, this is a failing of such proportions and complexity it will take more than one piece of legislation to put it right. Ultimately, we are the regulators.  Every time we say there has been a failure of regulation, what we are saying is that we, in this Parliament, have failed to protect our constituents properly, so there needs to be a degree of humility among all of us at the degree to which this Parliament and its machinery failed to predict, identify, prevent and remedy the scams that we have, sadly, spent so much time talking about over the past few months.
In supporting the Bill, I share the comments made towards the Treasury team. I have been very grateful for the positive way in which many of my comments have been taken by Ministers, which does not always happen with comments from Opposition Members. A big shout out to Salma and Scott in the SNP research team, who once again made me sound as if I knew what I was talking about, which is quite an achievement. A big thank you, also, to all those who gave evidence, either written or oral. Some were talking about things that had hurt them greatly. It was difficult for them to talk about that on the record. I hope the Bill has been made a bit better as a result of their contributions and I hope their contributions will have made sure that the issues raised, if they have not been dealt with in the Bill, will be dealt with by other legislation very soon.

James Grundy: I am pleased that the Government have offered compensation to investors who fell victim to the collapse of London Capital & Finance. Many are set to lose significant sums through no fault of their own, having invested in a Financial Conduct Authority approved company and followed advice from London Capital & Finance that the Government and Dame Gloster concluded was misleading. A number of my constituents fall into that category and they have asked that I speak for them today.
The Government have acknowledged that the situation regarding London Capital & Finance is unique and exceptional. As such, the Government stepped in to create a compensation package on a one-off basis. Bondholders invested in what they believed was a regulated and approved company, which of course it was, and the Government expect to pay out significant sums to those affected and eligible. I welcome that. The group of women I met in my constituency who are affected by this issue are not millionaires, and nor were they trying to make a quick buck by investing in risky, speculative finance. These are ordinary people who invested their hard-earned savings in what they believed to be a solid, officially approved and properly regulated product.
Bondholders have been badly let down by London Capital & Finance, but they have also been let down by the regulatory system that was designed to protect them. The independent investigation led by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, which the Government published at the end of last year, concluded that the Financial Conduct Authority did not discharge its functions in respect of London Capital & Finance in a manner which enabled it to effectively fulfil its statutory objectives during the relevant period. Due to the Financial Conduct Authority’s significant regulatory failure, there is a case to be made that the Government scheme ought to provide the same level of compensation as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, namely 100% of loss capped at £85,000 instead of the current £68,000.
Finally, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would write to me to clarify when the Treasury will release details of the timescale of the compensation process, so I can pass that on to my affected constituents. I hope the Government will give due consideration to the points I have raised in today’s debate.

Rehman Chishti: I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) and it is a real pleasure to follow him on this issue. I thank the Minister and, through the Minister, the Treasury and all involved in the Government for what they have done on this matter. The point made by my hon. Friend and others today is this: there are individuals who have suffered due to no fault of their own. It is absolutely right that each and every one of us who has those constituents stands up and fights to ensure they receive fairness and justice. I thank the Government for doing the right thing by offering compensation in these circumstances. Again, I thank all hon. Members who have pushed for that. Members of Parliament often need to push the Government to do the right thing and I thank the Government for doing the right thing.
The question I have for the Minister—it links to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—relates to prioritising individuals who have suffered the most. His point is absolutely right: how do we determine who has suffered the most? Will the Minister ask the Treasury to clarify whether there is a way to determine who has suffered the most? It is only fair and proper to ensure that when money goes out, those who have suffered the most, taking all factors into account, get compensation at the earliest opportunity.
My second point, also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, is on timescale. When will the compensation start to go out? Will it be before or after Christmas? What is the full timescale for the compensation to go out? What people do not like is injustice or delayed justice. I speak as a former barrister who prosecuted and defended cases. I understand that serious and complex Serious Fraud Office cases take time, but there needs to be an explanation from the Government to people outside about what is causing the delay and when they will receive justice. We know a fraud has been committed. We know the Gloster report identified a wrongdoing. Can the Minister therefore seek a clarification from the Attorney General’s office on the timeline for prosecuting individuals?
My third point, raised by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), is on what action the Government will take with regards to false advertisements and online harms. When I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, we had the same issue with regards to extremism and material going online. We asked Google, YouTube and all the other social platforms what action they were going to take. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that it is down to Members of Parliament like myself to push Google to do that, but we do not have the same clout as the Government—or the sanctions and levers available to the Government. If the new Secretary of State for Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wants to look at platform verifications, that is something she may want to consider. I say to the Minister: will he please get the compensation out as  quickly as possible and ensure that lessons are learned so that nothing like this ever happens again in our financial regulation of institutions?

Guy Opperman: I rise to respond to colleagues and wrap up the Bill, and I do so with great humility because this is a very serious matter. Many of our constituents up and down the country, regardless of politics, have had grievous losses. It is to the Government’s great credit that from the date of the Gloster report, we have managed to consider the report, draft and introduce legislation, consider it and progress it through the House. I am pleased to say that within six months of Royal Assent, payments will have been made. That is the assurance that the Treasury is willing to give; I most definitely support it, and I am quite sure that colleagues will hold it to account for that. It is very important that the matter is properly scrutinised.
I thank all Members, present or not, who have contributed to the Bill. Clause 1, as colleagues know, will ensure that there is parliamentary authority for the Government to pay compensation to London Capital & Finance bondholders who have not already received compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The Government recognise that this has been a very difficult time for LCF bondholders; I hope that the compensation will offer some relief for the distress and hardship suffered and provide closure on a difficult matter.
The Government expect to pay about £120 million in compensation to approximately 8,800 bondholders in total. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has confidence that all payments will be made within six months of Royal Assent; in the context of previous examples of the process under successive Governments, that is exceptionally fast.
This is also about justice. Having been a prosecutor for 20 years, done nine murder trials and prosecuted as an investigator for the Department of Trade and Industry, when it existed, I can assure the House that I take exceptionally seriously the principle that all people should be held to account within the due process of the law and that our constituents should feel that the due process of the law will be followed. On the comments made in respect of the Attorney General and the Treasury, I can only say that responses will be given to individual Members of Parliament.
Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the power to provide a loan to the Pension Protection Fund for the fraud compensation fund. It will ensure that compensation reaches approximately 8,806 individuals on an ongoing basis. It follows the High Court decision in the case of Board of the Pension Protection Fund v. Dalriada Trustees Ltd on 6 November 2020. Again, we have worked very quickly—within a year—to bring consideration and legislation forward so that the fund will have the £350 million that it needs to ensure that pension claims are met. Without these measures, there would not be the capability to make this compensation; that is why we need to provide the loan to ensure that the fund can continue to make compensation for all eligible schemes on an ongoing basis.
I thank the many people who have contributed to the Bill, including the private office and policy teams at the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. I  also thank all Members who have engaged with the Bill. Individual Members of Parliament have made a massive difference; I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy), who spoke very movingly about his amazing campaign on behalf of his constituents. He can be very proud of the way he has championed their cause, and so can my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas).
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton cited Warren Buffett as the guide to all matters going forward. I would respond with Lao Tzu, who it is fair to say is not often heard in the House of Commons: the longest journey starts with the shortest step. I consider that the Government have made many steps to making proper compensation and bringing the right people some recompense for a total injustice. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Subsidy Control Bill

Second Reading

Kwasi Kwarteng: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government are determined to seize the opportunities arising from Brexit. Now that the UK has left the European Union and we are no longer bound by the EU’s regime, we have the freedom to develop a new, bespoke system of subsidy control for the UK that delivers on our national priorities. Before the UK joined the European economic community, as it was then called, there was no framework at all. That absence contributed, I think, to Governments pursuing a failed economic approach with Whitehall trying to run the economy. They distorted competition, often by bailing out unsustainable industries and attempting to pick winners. The regime that the Government have set out in the Bill will help public authorities to deliver subsidies where they are needed, without facing excessive bureaucracy or lengthy pre-approval processes.

Miriam Cates: One of the industries that I hope will benefit from the Bill is the steel industry. As my right hon. Friend will know from frequent and very welcome engagements with me on the issue, Liberty Speciality Steels in Stocksbridge is a key employer in my constituency. While we were in the EU, the industry had access to the EU’s research fund for coal and steel. Now that we have left, £182 million is due to be returned to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of ringfencing that money, given that it has been raised from levies on the steel industry rather than through general taxation, so that we can have a UK fund for innovation in UK steel?

Kwasi Kwarteng: In her brief time in the House, my hon. Friend has been an impressive and focused campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the wider industry. As she knows, I am a particular fan of the steel industry, and want to seek a sustainable future for it here in the UK. I cannot give any budgetary guarantees, as she will appreciate, but this system does give us much more flexibility than was the case previously.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Kwasi Kwarteng: May I make a little more progress? Many other colleagues want to speak.
This is a Bill that promotes autonomy, transparency and accountability. It will empower hundreds of local authorities, as well as the devolved Administrations and other public authorities, to take control, allowing them to design subsidies to meet local needs while also meeting national policy objectives.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me now. I wanted to pursue his earlier comment. The Conservatives appear to be perpetuating a gift for blaming the EU for everything, to all intents and purposes, and it is no surprise that we have heard a little more of that today. We must bear it in mind that the UK was known for underutilising EU state rules—we were ranked 22nd out of 28 member  states in 2018—and it could be suggested that that was due to Conservative ideology rather than to any intrinsic problem.
This Bill will steamroll devolved competence. Does the Secretary of State agree that it reflects a new Conservative ideology, which is deliberately dismantling the powers of devolved Governments and their accountability as elected Governments per se?

Kwasi Kwarteng: That was a rather lengthy intervention, if I may say so, although I do not want to entrench on the Chair’s prerogative. As the right hon. Lady will appreciate, the Bill is a function of our leaving the EU. We are not trying to rehearse the arguments of Brexit; we were doing that long before she was elected to the House. I was certainly involved in those debates.
The Bill sets out a regime founded on seven clear and transparent principles. According to those principles, the subsidy must be designed to remedy a market failure. It must be designed to bring about a change in behaviour. It cannot normally cover costs that would have been funded in any case. It must be appropriate, proportionate, and designed to minimise any distortions to competition and investment in the United Kingdom. Finally, the public authority giving a subsidy must carry out a balancing test, and proceed only if the benefits of the subsidy outweigh any distortions to UK competition and investment, and to international trade.
Those principles will be supported by guidance for all to see. That will ensure that public authorities fully understand their legal obligations, and will make clear which subsidies are permitted and prohibited and under what circumstances.

Jonathan Edwards: As I understand it, the Bill also gets rid of assisted area status, which in the Welsh context includes my county of Carmarthenshire. Can the Secretary of State explain why the British Government are making it more difficult for the Welsh Government to help businesses in Carmarthenshire?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of what the Bill does. If he listens to the rest of my remarks, he may well hear further clarification. Of course, as is always the case, many of these issues will be discussed in Committee if the Bill’s Second Reading receives the assent of the House.
Public authorities will be empowered to make their own assessment of whether a new subsidy meets the requirements of the regime and, in the vast majority of cases, to proceed directly to granting that subsidy. For the first time, the decision on whether to grant a subsidy will always fall to the granting authority itself. For the largest subsidies, or those that present the highest risk of distorting competition, it is worth recalling that the default process under the EU state aid regime could last between nine and 12 months, and that that often determined whether a project could happen or not. Under the new regime, a new body, the UK subsidy advice unit, must publish its report within 30 working days. That is in huge contrast to the nine-to-12 month period under the EU.

Kevin Hollinrake: The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned ideology. One ideology that I hope  will always hold firm on this side of the House is that of not wasting taxpayers’ cash. Is the Minister comfortable with the situation in which local authorities and devolved Administrations could grant subsidies of hundreds of thousands of pounds without having to publicly declare them? Would we not be better with a much lower threshold, so that public scrutiny could always be in place?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Local authorities have to declare spending at much lower levels than the figure that my hon. Friend has just put forward. Clearly, transparency is at the centre of what we are trying to achieve. Instead of a year, the whole process will take only a few weeks. It will be a much quicker process and it will allow public authorities to act with far greater agility than before. However, I do not believe that the transparency will be in any way compromised. This is an area that will give more flexibility while not diminishing accountability. In fact, it will enhance accountability because, under the EU state aid regime, there was no way we could change the rules in any way.
At the same time, this is a regime that will provide certainty and confidence to businesses within the UK, and also to those among the foreign investment community who are keen to invest in the UK, by protecting against subsidies that risk distorting competition or causing harmful economic impacts. And of course, the regime will operate alongside our usual, traditional stringent spending controls to ensure the best use of public money.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister not see the inherent flaw in his argument about levelling up and treating the whole of the United Kingdom as one, in so far as Northern Ireland will be subject to a dual subsidy regime: the state aid rules imposed by article 10 of the protocol and the Bill that is going through today? So any subsidy that a public authority Northern Ireland wishes to give will be subject to the very one-year scrutiny that he is talking about, whereas a public authority in the rest of the United Kingdom will have it cleared within 20 days, thereby placing any attempt to attract business to Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.

Kwasi Kwarteng: That is precisely why I am addressing this precise point in my speech, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. We are setting out the detail of a UK regime that is far from simply adhering to the EU, and it will clearly no longer be necessary for Northern Ireland to be subject to the EU state aid regime. That is precisely why we have proposed the change to the Northern Ireland protocol to bring all subsidies within scope of the domestic regime.
The Bill, as hon. and right hon. Members should know, has been informed by a public consultation, which showed broad support for the Government’s proposals. The Government also held a second consultation with the devolved Administrations as we reached the end of the policy work and the considerable time that we spent trying to get the Bill shipshape. That second consultation showed clearly that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations agreed on the fundamentals of the regime, including the seven principles, the objectives for the regime, and the need to respect the devolution settlements and support levelling up.

Liz Saville-Roberts: If the devolved Governments are as content as the Secretary of State is saying, why are the Welsh Government making a legal challenge to this Bill?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As I said, there is agreement on the fundamentals of the regime. The seven principles are not contested; they are agreed across the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. I am not privy to the exact motivation of the devolved Administration in this case but, as far as the general principles are concerned, there is a wide measure of consensus.
It is worth reminding the House that the devolved Governments will have more control over subsidies than they have ever had before. Previously, it was Brussels that made the decisions about which subsidies could be granted to support viable businesses. Now, with this Bill, it will be for the elected Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to make those decisions.
During the trade and co-operation agreement negotiations and the creation of this new regime, ministerial colleagues, officials and I have worked closely with the devolved Administrations, and I thank those Administrations and the officials and Ministers here in Westminster for their considered and constructive input to the development of this policy.

Daniel Kawczynski: As somebody who has represented a border constituency for the past 16 years, I have become increasingly concerned about the additional levels of subsidy that the Welsh Government can give to businesses on the border, putting our Shropshire businesses at a disadvantage. Will the Secretary of State address that point, please?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As I have stressed, this regime has been discussed extensively with the devolved Administrations. Clearly we have conflicting views, but I believe the Government have worked constructively with the devolved Administrations and we feel that, along with our localism agenda, this is a step in the right direction. Compared with where we were for nearly 50 years in the EU state aid regime, this Bill is a significant improvement and enhancement that represents much greater devolution in this area than we have ever seen before.

Andrea Leadsom: Is my right hon. Friend as afraid as I am that the nationalists in Scotland will use any opportunity to be different and will impose big, generous subsidies to artificially support their own businesses simply to try to ensure that the English feel hard done by because it suits their agenda of separatism? That is not, in any sense, in the interest of the taxpayer.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend makes a legitimate and correct observation about the general obstructionism we sometimes see. There are seven principles outlined in the Bill, however, and one of them is not to distort the UK internal market, so what she says would clearly raise issues.
Our emphasis in this regime is on transparency, accountability and, of course, agility. This all means that we will not simply be replicating the European Commission’s role in the process, requiring a central body in Brussels to sign off on specific subsidies. In  other words, the UK Government did not go to great lengths to secure autonomy from the European Union on subsidy control only to reimpose the same old EU rules months later. That is not what this is about. I hope hon. Members will agree that outside the EU we will have the opportunity to do things differently. We did not leave the EU simply to settle back into the old ways of thinking and into the way things were done before. Those days are over.
I strongly believe that making the most of this new regime will need a culture change, not just in public bodies, devolved Administrations and local authorities but in central Government. It will be a culture change to take more responsibility for our own decisions, not simply outsourcing difficult decisions to the European Commission as we did for nearly 50 years. It will mean that we can be more accountable to the electorate for when and how taxpayers’ money is spent, and that we will be more agile in distributing public resources.
The Bill will ensure that our new subsidy system will maintain a competitive, free-market economy that has been central to the UK’s economic prosperity and success for decades. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Seema Malhotra: Let me start by saying that it is good to see the Secretary of State still in his place after last week’s reshuffle. I also wish to congratulate the new Ministers in his team on their appointments. However, I am sure I am not the only Member of this House who has noticed that there are now no female BEIS Ministers. While businesses across the country recognise the importance of balanced leadership at the top of their organisations, it is remarkable that BEIS seems to be moving in the opposite direction, and overlooking the important contribution that women Ministers make to ministerial teams and indeed to our economic debate.
To turn to the Bill, let me start by thanking the Secretary of State for his opening remarks, in which he laid out the subsidy control principles and talked about the need for autonomy, transparency and accountability in the new regime. Labour recognises the need for subsidy control legislation which establishes the framework for the UK’s post-Brexit regime. As of 1 January this year, EU state aid rules largely no longer apply in the UK. The EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement requires that the EU and the UK maintain their own independent systems of subsidy control. The UK also has to continue to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s subsidies and countervailing measures agreement. The Bill is therefore necessary for us to comply with our international obligations. More than that, however, it is necessary to protect the UK’s internal market and to ensure that public funds are being made available to businesses with the appropriate safeguards in place. That is why we will not be opposing the Bill tonight, but we are seeking to address significant gaps of concern during the passage of the Bill.

Jonathan Edwards: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) alluded to and as the hon. Lady will be aware, the Labour Government in Wales are taking the British Government to court on this issue. Will she explain why the Labour party here in Westminster is not showing solidarity with its colleagues back in Cardiff?

Seema Malhotra: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I will be making a considerable contribution on the issues associated with devolution and our grave concerns about this Bill, which we would want to see corrected. They need to be addressed because we want legislative consent to be given and the concerns being raised by devolved Administrations to be addressed.
Much in this proposed regime reflects EU state aid rules, including the definition of a subsidy, the prohibition of unlimited state guarantees and the condition that subsidies should be justified on public interest grounds. Where the Bill significantly differs from the EU’s rules is in its departure from a pre-notification system, where subsidies had to be approved before they were granted. The Bill offers the potential of a quicker system where subsidies are not required to be approved in advance of being implemented, but are subject to a review and appeal system. We want this regime to be robust and to stand the test of time, but the new system will work only if it provides transparency, oversight and scrutiny, and there are key areas of the Bill where those are missing.
First, there are huge gaps in the Bill and crucial aspects are yet to be defined. The Bill may establish a regulatory framework of subsidy control, but it fails to provide any clear indication as to how and where the Government plan to see those subsidies being spent and at what scale. Labour is in favour of a subsidy system that backs British businesses and our economy, but it must operate in the context of a strong UK-wide industrial strategy, which for all intents and purposes is not nearly where it needs to be. Furthermore, there is no clear plan for how the new subsidy control regime will be used to support national priorities such as net zero. Much more needs to be joined up and coherent in the new regime.
Secondly, the Bill in its current form does not provide a fair role for devolved Administrations—we have heard that in hon. Members’ interventions—in developing and implementing the new regime. We believe that changes must be made.
Thirdly, we are concerned that the Bill does not strike the right balance between efficiency and oversight, particularly regarding the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. Transparency is also severely lacking in the case of some subsidies, putting the country at risk of allowing damaging subsidies on the scale of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and allowing the use of public money to continue unknown and therefore unchallenged.
Although the Bill may propose a quicker subsidy regime, we want to understand further how the Government plan for those subsidies to be used, what will be brought forward from the contributions to the Government’s consultation and the response to it, and how that will manifest in the guidance to come.
We have heard the concerns about support for assisted areas or key British sectors and foundation industries, such as steel. As the Minister for Finance and Local Government in the Senedd asked in her letter to the Government:
“If areas that have suffered historical economic disadvantage will no longer have the right to greater flexibility of subsidy over other regions… what alternative approach does the Government propose to ensure that disadvantaged areas can compete on a level playing field?”
Is the equivalent to an assisted areas policy implied under the seven principles, for example, equity rationale or specific policy objectives? In that case, will the   Government make that clear in the guidance? Public authorities that will transition to the new regime in our devolved Administrations need that clarity.
Parliament is right to be concerned that the Conservatives are more interested in levelling-up rhetoric than in actually levelling up. In March last year, the regional deprivation fund highlighted that clearly, which led to considerable debate in the House. The Government appeared to direct money not to areas that needed it most, but to areas that seemed to serve their interests. If the Government are truly committed to their levelling-up agenda and their plan for growth, they need to show it. The Secretary of State should publish their plans and detailed guidance on how the subsidy control regime will direct public funds to the communities and businesses that need it most, in the interests of genuinely levelling up in deprived areas and our wider economy.
We also know that the UK has historically spent far less on subsidies than its international counterparts. For example, in 2019 the UK spent just 0.38% of GDP on state aid, far lower than Germany, which spent more than three times that or Hungary and Denmark. Indeed, we were seventh lowest in the EU.
The Secretary of State does not have the strongest record on industrial strategy, given that he scrapped his predecessor’s plan and wound up the Industrial Strategy Council in March.

Andrea Leadsom: Why does the hon. Lady equate the fact that the UK has an excellent track record of allowing businesses to stand on their own two feet rather than being bailed out with state aid with not having an industrial strategy? Surely we are backing capitalism as the way for everybody to become richer and be in work.

Seema Malhotra: I will just leave the right hon. Lady with the Institute for Government’s feedback on the Government’s plan for growth, which was that it seemed more like a shopping a list than a prospectus. If those who independently look at what the Government are producing in terms of a plan and our industrial strategy make such comments, the Government would be wise to heed some of that feedback, in the interests of our country. I would like to be having a different debate. I would prefer to have a debate that was much more about content than on whether there is a clear plan.
Let me come back to my speech. We recognise the debate about whether the Government have a strong record on industrial strategy. Last week, the Confederation of British Industry urged the Government to
“build an economy of the future through catalytic public investments”
and to re-find its “role as market maker”. On research and development, innovation, regional growth and hydrogen—on which, perhaps, a strategy has since come forward—the CBI said that further action was needed for the UK
“to remain internationally competitive against peer nations where business investment levels–and public spending…far outstrips our own.”
Sufficiency of strategy is important here; it is not just about the publication of a document. There has been feedback on that, too.
We want to see well-designed, proportionate subsidies as part of the wider industrial strategy that we need to grow the businesses and industries of the future and to  invest in our transition to net zero. Labour has also said that we must buy, make and sell more in Britain, as called for by our shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). That is part of how we can ensure resilience in our economy—the need for which has been highlighted only too starkly by the gas-price challenge and the CO2 challenge of the past week.
The Bill lacks in not only vision but key details and scrutiny. The Institute for Government has expressed concerns about the ability of this House and the other place properly to scrutinise the new subsidy control regime, given the important issues that are being left to secondary legislation or guidance. The Institute for Government claims that the gaps left in the Bill by the Government
“could deny Parliament a proper chance to scrutinise how the new system will work”.
The Government’s own impact assessment says:
“There are considerable unknowns—because key features of the regime will be defined later in secondary legislation or statutory guidance. The analysis of the regime’s impact is also based on historical data when UK public authorities had to comply with the EU State aid regime.”
The impact assessment also says:
“We should expect the behaviour of public authorities”—
perhaps the Secretary of State was alluding to this when he talked about culture change— “and the resulting distribution of subsidies to change under the new regime—although it is not possible to forecast how this will change.”
We are yet to hear how the Government plan to define categories such as subsidies “of interest” and “of particular interest”—categories that will determine which subsidies are voluntarily or mandatorily referred to the Competition and Markets Authority. Such definitions are to be determined not now, but through secondary legislation, in respect of which Parliament is given less opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s decisions. To aid scrutiny, which I believe the Secretary of State will want to be to the standards we would want in this House for a regime that will stand the test of time, he should set out the timeline for consultation on and the publication of secondary legislation that covers critical aspects of the new system.

Simon Baynes: Will the hon. Lady say why no Labour Back Benchers are present in the Chamber? If this issue means so much to the Labour party, why is it not properly represented in the debate?

Seema Malhotra: I have been involved in extensive discussion with my colleagues, and they will want to make significant contributions in Committee to address the gaps in the Bill. We continue to work on that.
As I was saying, the Secretary of State should set out the timeline for consultation on and the publication of secondary legislation that covers critical aspects of the new system. I know the House will want to see that in good time.
Public bodies have faced significant difficulties since the start of this year precisely because of the lack of guidance on how to interpret the subsidy control principles  agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, so clarity on how public authorities should demonstrate that their subsidies comply with those principles will be an important part of the subsidy regime. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that we will want to see some decisions being made in the interests of how we recover and how we are to grow our economy for the future.
On the important issue of devolution, most importantly of all we are concerned that the Bill has not taken the four-nations approach that is essential for an effective UK-wide subsidy control regime. For example, the balance of the power to challenge between the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations is asymmetric. I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard those representations made to him directly. Twelve months ago, the shadow Secretary of State stood at this Dispatch Box and warned the Prime Minister of the risks of undermining with policy decisions the devolution settlement that has been part of our constitution for two decades and is vital to our Union. However, on the evidence of the legislation before us, it appears that a shift in mindset and thinking has not been a part of how the Government have brought forward this legislation, and we hope that they are going to listen to the concerns that we and other Members are raising.

Stephen Flynn: Let me make a point that almost follows on from the intervention of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). If Labour Members are so concerned about the devolution settlement, why do they not vote against the Bill?

Seema Malhotra: The hon. Member will have heard my earlier remarks; although we have considerable concerns, we believe that the Bill is vital to us meeting our international obligations and we want it to pass. However, there are significant gaps and issues that must be addressed in Committee. I hope that he will work with Labour on those matters, so that the regime that comes out of this process is one that reflects the four-nations approach that I just articulated.

Stephen Flynn: I appreciate the hon. Member’s remarks and I admire her confidence in being able to get the Government to address Labour’s concerns, but let me just be clear: is it the Labour party’s position that this Bill—irrespective of the damage it does to devolution—should pass?

Seema Malhotra: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue with my remarks, because he has not quite represented our position. It is important that we continue the debate and detailed scrutiny of the Bill. The remarks that I am about to make may provide him with some reassurance on this issue.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Member accept that a regime of control is important for all the devolved areas of the United Kingdom: first, because it is a safeguard against richer regions being able to subsidise more heavily than poorer regions; and secondly, because it is a safeguard against central Government issuing subsidies that could affect the devolved regions? We need a strong regulatory regime.

Seema Malhotra: The right hon. Member makes an important point. I will make some points in that regard later in my remarks.
As I was saying, on the evidence of the legislation it appears that the Government have not reflected in the Bill a true four-nations approach in order that we have a UK-wide subsidy regime that commands the confidence and support of all parts of the UK. We do not contest that subsidy control is a reserved matter, but we recognise and support the requirement on public authorities to consider the impact of a subsidy on competition or investment within the UK. It is important for the Secretary of State to make it clear to the House why there is such a limited role for the devolved Administrations in the development of this new regime. They are not even required to be consulted beforehand on advice given by the Secretary of State on the implementation of subsidies.
Under the legislation, the Competition and Markets Authority’s new subsidy advice unit will play an important role in protecting the UK’s internal market, yet the Bill provides no formal role for the devolved Administrations in appointing members to the new unit. Remarkably, the Bill is even less generous than the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which at least requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before making an appointment to the Office for the Internal Market. Can the Government not see how this flies in the face of a four-nations approach?
It is imperative that the devolved Administrations be involved in the development of secondary legislation and in the amendments to the Bill. Even more worryingly, the powers given to the Secretary of State and First Ministers are significantly asymmetric. Although the Secretary of State is explicitly able to challenge Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subsidies that may damage English interests, no complementary power is given to First Ministers. Unlike the Secretary of State, the devolved Administrations seem unlikely to be able to challenge English subsidies that may be perceived to be causing harm to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish interests. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether this is correct, or is it his intention that First Ministers would be considered as interested parties for the purposes—

Andrea Leadsom: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra: I have given way to the right hon. Lady already and I hope she will not mind if I continue my remarks.
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that First Ministers, or public interest groups, be considered interested parties for the purposes of being able to bring forward a challenge to a subsidy decision—if so, why will the Government not put that in the Bill?—or will a challenge have to be made via the Secretary of State?
This is not where the devolution challenges end. Perhaps the Secretary of State could clarify his remarks on Northern Ireland, because, as I understand it, under article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, EU state aid rules must apply to subsidies that affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. This affects not only subsidies granted in Northern Ireland but subsidies granted throughout the UK. There is a risk—unless the Secretary of State wants to correct me—that article 10,  taken alongside the new subsidy regime, could cause legal or practical difficulties, particularly if the UK and EU disagree on what affects EU-Northern Ireland trade.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I thought that I could not have been clearer on this precise point in my opening speech. I repeat: it is clearly no longer necessary for Northern Ireland to be subject to the EU state aid regime, and that is precisely why we proposed a change to the Northern Ireland protocol in order to bring all subsidies within scope of the domestic regime.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Secretary of State. Indeed, I did hear those comments in his opening remarks. I was seeking to clarify the issue because I do not think it is clear across the House, and it is important that it is tested and made clear in the course of the passage of the Bill.
Crucially, what is the Government’s intention if the Bill does not receive legislative consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as has been requested?

Deidre Brock: Is the hon. Lady suggesting a four-nation approach whereby any one of the nations has a veto over decisions taken by those four nations that they feel are not in their interest?

Seema Malhotra: I am not clear why the hon. Lady refers to a veto. I think we are talking about the symmetry of powers in terms of being able to bring forward a challenge. I hope that makes the point clear.

Deidre Brock: rose—

Seema Malhotra: If it is okay, I want to move on because I am conscious of time, but the hon. Lady may want to make her point in her own remarks.
Finally, on the issues of oversight and enforcement, while well-designed subsidies can support Government objectives and foster growth and opportunity, there are risks too. Subsidies can distort markets, undermine competition and unfairly discriminate between businesses. Effective oversight and enforcement are critical to the success of our subsidy control regime, yet they are lacking in certain areas of the new regime. The Bill does not provide enough certainty as to the definition of “interested parties” that are able to challenge a subsidy. Does that definition extend to local authorities and devolved Administrations?
There are also concerns about the limited powers of the CMA’s new subsidy advice unit under the Bill. We are pleased that a trusted independent regulator is being given key responsibilities. However, as the Bill stands, the CMA lacks any power to instigate an investigation on its own initiative or to take enforcement action. This requires careful consideration, particularly when transparency issues around the Bill are taken into account.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra: I am sorry but I will move on. I have taken an intervention from the hon. Member, so perhaps he can make his own contribution.
The Government have stipulated that subsidies under £315,000 over three years will not have to be reported on the subsidy database. However, there is an issue, also raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), about the threshold and reporting. In the consultation on the Bill, the Government asked whether there should be a minimum threshold of £50,000 below which no subsidies would need to be reported, and 64% of those who responded agreed on that threshold of £50,000. On that general point, what are the Government’s plans for reporting, oversight and accountability arrangements for subsidies below that threshold? I am sure they will want to ensure transparency in how public money is being spent and to whom it is going.
On the decision made for a six-month time limit to upload subsidies to the subsidy database, there was a discussion in the consultation on whether that period should be shorter, or three months. What was the reason for deciding on six months? That seems rather a long time for a decision to be uploaded and therefore in the public domain. If interested parties and the Secretary of State are not made aware of smaller subsidies or those that are uploaded—they have a month to bring a challenge—there will be no opportunity to prevent them going forward, even if they are harmful. The CMA may be able to produce reports on such subsidies, but it will not be able to enforce any of its recommendations. Does that not expose a significant transparency gap in the Bill? The Government could choose to have further reporting requirements. I urge them to review the CMA’s role alongside the necessary transparency requirements for subsidies.
Labour recognises the need to develop a post-Brexit subsidy control regime in line with the UK’s international commitments. There are benefits from a more flexible and speedy subsidy regime, but we have serious concerns about gaps in the Bill that we will look to address during its passage. Those include unanswered questions on the operation of the new regime, its enforcement and oversight, and the role of the devolved Administrations. We want to see legislation that establishes an effective UK-wide subsidy regime that commands confidence across the country. The Bill gives the Government and other public authorities greater powers to provide subsidies. It is an important Bill, but the gaps in it must be addressed.

John Penrose: I am seriously pleased to see the Bill coming forward. It is much needed, not just because, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) pointed out, it is a fulfilment of our international obligations, but because, as the Secretary of State rightly said, before we went into the EU and had any kind of proper subsidy control regime, it was pretty much a free-for-all and I am afraid that, no matter who was in government, broadly speaking, the lack of rules was terrible.
Politicians on all sides and of all stripes over an extended period have a dreadful track record in yielding to temptation, particularly when they are being lobbied hard by someone pleading desperately for this or that piece of help—it’s just one more wafer-thin subsidy, sir.  We give way. We all do—it is only human—and it is a long proven fact that politicians are terrible at picking winners, but losers are really good at picking politicians. It is therefore essential that, as we come out of the EU, we have our UK-only version of a rules-based system in place. The Secretary of State is right to move towards that, even if we did not have those international obligations to deliver it.
I am also pleased to see the seven principles that are the core of the approach, backed up by various other environmental principles as well. They start with the notion that there must be a market failure before any form of taxpayers’ cash can start to be dished out. We can all think of businesses in the past—perhaps even today—that would have liked nothing better than to reach their sticky fingers into the taxpayers’ pockets and extract some cash to make their lives better, their shareholders’ lives simpler and their management’s lives easier. It is therefore absolutely right that the Secretary of State has limited his own freedom—and, more particularly, that of his successors—so that we can have, we hope, a consistent approach and we will not have open season for Government failure. We always talk about market failure in this place, but that principle is crucial for avoiding Government failure in future.
That is a point I made in the Government-commissioned report I was asked to write by the Secretary of State’s predecessor on competition policy. Self-denial is absolutely essential to make sure that we do not start splashing around taxpayers’ cash in an unproductive way and subsidising commercially hopeless cases because they have good lobbyists. The trouble is that the more hopeless they are but the deeper pockets they have and the better lobbyists they have, the harder it is to avoid that kind of temptation.
This is a welcome and necessary Bill, and it is vitally important. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said earlier, I do not think we should have any truck with the notion that we were not one of the most prolific users of subsidies when we were still part of the EU. We ranked relatively low in the league table against other countries in the EU in our use of subsidies, and as a free marketeer I think that should be a badge of honour. It shows that we are in general allowing capitalism to run and allowing capitalist animal spirits to move resources, investment and productive assets around our economy in the most efficient way to drive our economic growth. Ultimately, it is that economic growth that pays for the public services we all care about, and that we all need and rely on as well. So yes to capitalism and yes to avoiding distortions, discriminations and, dare I say it, potentially the risks of political favouritism if we do not have these rules in place and a rules-based system. I am delighted that this Bill is here, and it establishes some really important principles for all of us.
There is one small fly in the ointment, which I will mention now. I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going into things that will I am sure be properly covered both in Committee and on Report. I will mention the principle at this stage—it has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and by others—and it is the point about transparency. The Secretary of State has made that a central point, and he is absolutely right to say that he wants to establish the UK as one of  the leading examples of subsidy transparency in, I think, the world. I may be misquoting him slightly, but I am sure the principle is one he would sign up to.
That is an absolutely core piece because if we do not have such transparency—if we cannot see what these subsidies are or we cannot see what they are until it is too late—how on earth are we to know that this excellent new set of rules-based principles are being followed properly or not? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as we all know, and exposing this to public scrutiny cannot be bad. Because we are setting up this rules-based system, we should have nothing to hide. If we are worried about transparency, that is always a bad sign in the first place. Therefore, the central principle, which the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers have already enunciated, is entirely the right one.
My concern is therefore not with the principle that the Secretary of State has enunciated; it is whether or not this Bill will actually deliver the principle in the way he hopes. This is a technical concern, not one of principle at all, but the technical concern is real. We have left the EU, but the EU’s basic rules for disclosure required us to disclose subsidies of above €500,000. The new Bill, as we have heard, has a variety of different exemptions, but broadly speaking it requires us to disclose subsidies of above £500,000. That means we will be disclosing fewer subsidies in future than we were under the EU because the threshold is higher. It is not the only threshold; there are other thresholds. One of them is even higher still, at £725,000, for public interest subsidies of one kind or another, which I think is for subsidising things such as buses and social housing. All those things may very well need subsidies, but why are we being secretive about it? Why should we not make this public?

Robin Millar: There are very specific exclusions for inclusion on the central database. Would my hon. Friend extend his argument to consideration of those excluded items as well?

John Penrose: There are a couple of exclusions that I think make an awful lot of sense. For example, there is an exclusion about national security, which I hope everybody on all sides of this House would sign up to. However, in principle, to follow and frank the principle that the Secretary of State has rightly put across about how we want to be the most transparent about our use of subsidies—because it will show that we are following those rules, and that we are letting capitalism rip and therefore that productive assets are being used in the most effective way without distortion—in general there should be fewer exclusions, with only the minimal number of exclusions that is safe, although I completely accept that there will need to be some. There is no reason why we should worry about disclosing pretty much any subsidy, particularly because local councils, for example, already have to report anything they spend above £500. They already take records, keep notes, and publish those details, and it would be peculiar to say that although they have to declare spending above £500, they do not have to declare subsidies above £500,000. I am not sure that is terribly consistent.
The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that when subsidies are notified they have to be turned round and approved or disapproved by the CMA within 30 days. That is entirely right. We need a prompt, nimble, and agile response in order for our economy to work in  a prompt, nimble and agile way. It therefore seems odd, if I may put it politely, that we are allowing subsidies not to be registered for up to six months after they have been made. We will therefore have fewer subsidies declared, in a way that does not match what local councils already have to declare. Councils already have to keep such information and data; it is not something they will have to start doing from scratch, and all they will need to do is paste it on to a central database. They also do not have to put it out for six months. These are small technical tweaks, but they are central to delivering on the principle, which the Secretary of State rightly enunciated.

Sammy Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that a subsidy could be well in place for six months but then there would be a challenge period of 30 days? If there was a reasonable challenge and another body had lost out, would it not be a bit late?

John Penrose: The right hon. Gentleman is right, particularly because in the modern digitising economy, everything is moving faster and faster every year. Even if that issue was not a problem before—and I think it probably would have been—it certainly would become one in future. There is scope for tightening that part of the Bill technically, so as to deliver on the principles that the Secretary of State has rightly enunciated regarding timing, the degree of transparency and the level of disclosure. As we will have nothing to hide, we should not hide it; we should get it all out there and ensure that it is available.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend makes some strong points, and I absolutely agree with those about transparency. One objection to lowering the threshold to a few hundred pounds rather than £0.5 million might be the burden  of red tape attached, but, as I understand it, the costs for having a database that includes pretty much every subsidy—about £20,000 per annum—are minimal.

John Penrose: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, he has led me to the final point in my speech. He is right to say—I know Ministers in the Department have this instinctively in the marrow of their bones—that we must not turn this into some bureaucratic red tape burden. Indeed, one chapter in the report that I was asked to write about competition policy refers to reducing red tape burdens. We all understand that too much of that will slow down even the best company and reduce its competitiveness compared with companies in other countries, so he is right to be concerned.
In this case, however, doing what I suggest should reduce the red tape burden rather than add to it. That is because one of the other exemptions, which I think is £325,000, is for a cumulative set of subsidies. If I have three or four subsidies granted by three or four different local councils, or perhaps by a devolved Government and some local councils, and they cumulatively add up to £325,000 over a three-year period, that has to be declared and everyone has to keep track of that. Under the existing Bill, individual councils making those grants will not be keeping that record. They will not be able to, because they will not know what the other councils have done. The companies that are getting those grants will have to keep their own records for three years. That is a business burden that we will create if we do not change the Bill right now.
If we just said instead, “There’s one central public database and everything gets put on it; no company has to keep any records whatsoever because it’s all out there and it’s visible, searchable, clear and transparent,” there would be no extra business burden at all and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton just pointed out, there would be minimal extra public burden, because the local councils, devolved Administrations and Government Departments keep these records anyway. All they would have to do is extend the print range on their spreadsheets slightly further down the page, or organise their automatic file uploads a little more simply, so the burden would be minimal. If we did it that way round rather than what is currently in the Bill, we would avoid creating a new red tape burden.
With that, I will do something unusual for a politician and shut up. This is a good Bill, it is an essential Bill, and it does some really important things. I am really pleased to see it come forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing precisely the right thing, in the right way. We have one concern about detail; with any luck, I am sure that can be ironed out.

Stephen Flynn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who gave a fair tour de force of the Bill. I admired his concern about transparency, which was perhaps ironic, given that he sits on the Conservative Benches. The Tories have quite happily dished out billions of pounds worth of contracts to their donors and friends for wasted personal protective equipment throughout the pandemic, but I guess that in real terms, transparency comes and goes depending on—

Kevin Hollinrake: Has the hon. Gentleman bothered to read the National Audit Office report, which specifically says that Ministers had no involvement in any procurement decision? Will he put that properly on the record? All he is doing by making those points is trashing the name of the whole of politics, not just that of the Conservatives. It is a complete nonsense, and he should admit it.

Stephen Flynn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It does not put a stain on all of politics; it puts a stain on the Conservative party, where it firmly belongs, because Conservative party donors and friends have gained the most from this pandemic when it has come to contracts. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can argue all they want, but the facts are as clear as that.
Now, to the Bill before us; we got a little side-tracked there. It is important to look at the wider context of the Bill: the present situation, the past regime, and what is to come, which of course is what the Bill sets out. Let us look first at what is in place at this moment in time. As I see it, and as I think all of us in the Chamber will see it, we left the European Union, but we left to a system of nothing. We do not actually have an effective system at the moment. Indeed, I think it was the Institute for Government that deemed the current system to be completely ineffective.
That is understandable. Of course, a public body looking at what it is going to be doing does not want to break any rules, so if it does not have a full understanding  of what the rules are, it will obviously err on the side of caution. In many ways, that might be an argument for the Bill. I can certainly understand why that may be the case, and that was what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), intimated in terms of meeting international obligations and the like. I do not think anyone would necessarily disagree with that.
Let us reflect slightly on where we have come from in relation to state aid. Some of this has been touched on already by Members on both sides of the House, but there is one specific aspect of it that I think needs to be aired properly. It was mentioned by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), at the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, and again by the Secretary of State—perhaps not directly, but he certainly inferred it—that state aid was a problem of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Yet if we look at the facts before us, 95% of all state aid measures did not even go near the European Commission’s desk, so we are almost fixing a problem that did not exist in the terms that the Government think it did, irrespective of how much they want to make Brussels seem like the bad guys.
I appreciate, though I disagree with, the stance of some Conservative Members—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare made this point, as I think did the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) when she was in her place—that we did not, when we were in the European Union, make the most of what we could do under state aid regulations. However, the facts are that, under those terrible state aid regulations, we invested but a third of what the Germans invested, and a fraction of what others invested, so the big bad guys in Brussels were not so bad after all. Yet we left that arrangement for a system that, at this moment in time, is completely ineffective.
That brings us to the next stage, as represented by this Bill. As I see it, the Bill’s objectives are to enable strategic interventions to support economic recovery, levelling up and net zero. That is not wholly different from the EU state aid rules, which were, of course, to support the environment and innovation. The one slight difference, however, is that the EU state aid rules had a specific remit for the EU regional aid system, whereby people advocated money to be directed to less developed regions.
I have to say that I am a little surprised that there are not a few more red wall Tories present, whose regions could be described as—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is waving at me; I am sure he will seek to intervene on me in due course. If I were a Conservative Back Bencher representing a constituency in the north of England, I would be deeply concerned about this aspect of the Bill. Although the Government say that the objective of the Bill is to level up, it contains no detail at all. It says that the Secretary of State will come back, subsequent to the Bill, to provide the detail on how levelling up will work. More importantly, we have walked away from a system that put money directly into less developed regions.

Simon Baynes: I am a Conservative Back Bencher representing a red wall seat in north Wales. The previous EU system was very biased against regional and localised issues of deprivation. It went for large areas, but there  are plenty of areas in north-east Wales that require the same amount of help as was gifted under the European system. I would argue that the new system is much more direct, much more localised and much more effective.

Stephen Flynn: I admire the hon. Member’s optimism, but I am not quite sure where he has read that, because, of course, the Bill does not have that detail. He is hoping that the Secretary of State will subsequently provide that detail, but the Bill does not make that clear.
Another extremely important point that the Bill does not make clear is in relation to relocation subsidies. Essentially, the Government are saying that they will not relocate subsidies to areas with a more significant problem. They might want to level up—to use their term—but that is not going to happen under the terms of the Bill.

Kirsty Blackman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in fact, the Bill does the opposite of levelling up, in that it refuses to allow anything to happen in disadvantaged areas that will disadvantage rich areas? That is how the Bill is written—it is in schedule 1F.

Stephen Flynn: My hon. Friend could not have put it better. It is a pity that there are not more Tory Back Benchers present to hear her and understand the damage that they are going to do to their own communities.
The Bill’s key objectives also include net zero. Again, there is no detail on net zero or how the Government intend to subsidise its delivery. We are being told to just believe—to hope on a whim and a prayer—that the Government will do this, that they will deliver. Let us look at that from a Scottish perspective. Let us look at the Government’s record. As the Minister and, indeed, others in this Chamber know only too well, Scottish renewables projects, which are key and fundamental to reaching net zero, pay the highest grid charges in the entirety of Europe. In the UK—on these islands—renewables projects in the south-east of England get paid to access the national grid, whereas renewables projects in Scotland have to pay to do so.

Angus MacNeil: That is a vital point that will come forward in the next couple of months, when the Scottish islands could be providing as much as is coming across from some of the European interconnectors at present. On subsidies, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a good point on enforcement. In part 5, an “interested party” is defined in clause 70(7) as “the Secretary of State” while others are just people who “may be affected”. Should not Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers be specifically outlined? Or is this something seen as being granted by London and London only, leaving London to make arbitrary decisions on subsidies? My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully that producing renewable energy in certain parts elicits a subsidy, while in other parts it is penalised.

Stephen Flynn: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes that point incredibly well and I will come on to that clear power grab from the UK Government.
To finalise the point in relation to net zero, the UK Government are telling us that we should trust them. Well, we don’t and we won’t.
The second objective of the Bill I want to touch on briefly relates to empowering devolved Governments—I mean, come on! Empowering devolved Governments. We are going to have a subsidy advice unit set up, a new independent body that will sit within the remit of the Competition and Markets Authority, yet the devolved nations have no say, no input at all whatever, in the role of that organisation or, indeed, who sits on the board. So of course that is not the devolved nations being involved as they should be. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) says it is independent, but of course that is not the case. Was it not the former Prime Minister who had a role in appointments to the board of the CMA, or have I got that incorrect? I think what he is referring to in terms of an independent body is the subsidy advice unit. Of course that is, but it sits within the remit of the CMA—that is the point I am making. The devolved nations have no role in that body. Those are two very separate but important points that am sure he will come to reflect on.
The biggest and most concerning aspect relating to the devolved nations is the fact that when a public body in Scotland or Wales decides that it wants to invest in a project, the UK Secretary of State, irrespective of whether the project relates to devolved areas, can choose to call them in under the remit of the CMA. That is a clear step into devolution.

Angus MacNeil: We could have a situation where somebody in England decides to set up something on the Welsh border or Scottish border without, seemingly, the powers of Scottish or Welsh Ministers, or even the Scottish Government, to try to remove the attention of Westminster. That is like the Scottish Government setting something up across the North channel almost in direct competition with Northern Ireland, with perhaps Northern Ireland not having the power of equivalence that it appears to be giving to the supremacy at Westminster, which I think is very wrong.

Stephen Flynn: That is an entirely fair and accurate point.

Robin Millar: From the Opposition Benches this afternoon, we are hearing a lot about asymmetry. In particular, we are hearing about a lack of involvement and so on. I will not make any points about sovereignty—I do not wish to go down that road—but I will make a simple observation and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can comment on it. Was that not the case when we were a part of the EU? We were directed into things. We did not have the same control he seems to think that they should have now.

Stephen Flynn: The hon. Member makes his point in his own way, but let me be clear. How can I put this? We do not think that the system that operated within the EU was one that we should have turned our back on. What did we turn our back on it for? Let me answer that briefly, as a slight anecdote: it was for Brexit—the chaos of Brexit. Food shortages, staff shortages, trade barriers, the chaos that we see—

Robin Millar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Flynn: The hon. Member has had his say, and I am sure that he will make further contributions later.
Conservative Members come to this Chamber and tell us that Brexit will solve everything, but of course it has not; it has only made things worse for working people in our society. What we have before us, in no uncertain terms, is a Bill that undermines devolution, following on from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the shared prosperity fund. If they want to protect their Union, they are doing a damned good job of destroying it. Do some more!

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) in broadly welcoming the Bill’s direction, and indeed its existence; I think that we need a robust subsidy control regime and I am glad that we are putting one in place.
I largely welcome the Government’s central decision to put parameters and rules in place and then trust public authorities to follow them, rather than having a very strict consent regime that would then become slow and cumbersome. I think that that is the right way to go, but it is intriguing to read the Bill and find a control regime that applies only if there is a
“subsidy…of interest or particular interest”,
neither of which terms is defined. At some point, a future Secretary of State could end up with quite a controlling regime by defining “particular interest” as any subsidy of more than half a million pounds, and then we would be back where we were.
It would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks a “particular interest” might be and what the criteria might be for going into it, so that we know roughly where the line will be drawn, where the discretion for authorities is, and where we will start to expect mandatory or voluntary referral for advance clearance. I do not object to that process, because one of the key things for any subsidy regime is getting certainty so that when a business receives a subsidy, it knows that the rules have been followed, that it is entitled to it, and that there will not be a claim in six months’ or a year’s time that ends up with its having to repay the subsidy and being in worse distress than at the start. Having a regime with clearly drawn lines, so that everyone knows where they are and knows that once something is given it will stick, is hugely welcome. When we consider the Bill in more detail, it would be helpful to know where the line of discretion will be drawn.
The quid pro quo of a regime without intrusive up-front clearance is that we must have transparency on what is being paid, so that everyone knows that it is consistent with the rules and that some public authorities around the country are not misinterpreting them or, heaven forbid, deliberately doing things that they should not be doing. Clearly a risk in any subsidy regime is money being paid out in unlawful ways, so we want to be able to identify that situation pretty quickly.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. I think that a Bill’s Second Reading is the time to test the arguments. He mentioned transparency, and a colleague of his debated a similar point with the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson,  my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). The crux of it comes back to the state aid point. In the European Union, there were 27 or 28 states and a very defined gamekeeper among all those poachers, namely the European Commission. The concern that I think SNP Members share is who the gamekeeper is and who the poachers are. Are the UK Government playing both gamekeeper and poacher in regards to subsidy? I am testing the arguments in this debate, but over time the Government will need to address the point and be very clear that they are not taking both sides, as poacher and gamekeeper.

Nigel Mills: I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. One attraction that I think the EU system had for the Treasury and occasionally for some politicians was that they could say, “We’d love to give you a grant to save your business, but tragically we’re not allowed to under EU rules,” when actually they did not want to because they knew it was not the right thing to do, so it was handy to have somebody else to blame. I think the Bill sets out that the CMA is the body that will or will not give clearance. It will not be Ministers doing that, so if the hon. Member wants a gamekeeper in this situation, I think it is the CMA.

Angus MacNeil: But is the CMA not a body of Westminster construction, as opposed to being a body of the Union?

Kevin Hollinrake: This is the United Kingdom Parliament.

Angus MacNeil: Well, there are many Parliaments in this United Kingdom at the moment, and we know that each and every one should have the same voice. If this is the poacher and gamekeeper Parliament, surely that is a problem for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—that is the argument that I would postulate.

Nigel Mills: I think it is fair enough for a UK single market to have a single regulator that decides a subsidy regime to ensure that the application of the rules is consistent across the whole of that single market. The hon. Gentleman wants to go back into the EU single market, which has a single regulator which decides things across the whole of that its single market. He does not seem to accept that the EU single market should have the same arrangement.

John Penrose: May I strengthen my hon. Friend’s point by saying that whatever people’s views of the CMA may be, it is pretty well respected as being a robustly politically independent organisation, no matter who is in government?

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think we should move on from this point before we lengthen the debate into something that we do not want.
As I was saying, a transparency regime enabling us to see promptly what is being paid to whom and for what reason, and what the expected outcomes are, is of key importance. I agree with what my hon. Friend was saying earlier: a regime in which we have to wait six months for a disclosure, and then only of amounts over half a  million pounds, has the wrong balance. I think that is where we end up with concern over subsidies, and scandals brewing, and then a lurch back towards more of a clearance regime. I urge the Government to rethink those points.
We are not expecting public authorities to be handing out huge numbers of subsidies after half an hour’s consideration. The rules that we are introducing are fairly strict. There will have to be some careful consideration of any proposed subsidies to ensure that those rules have been met, and there are processes for checking that the person who is being paid has not already exceeded a certain threshold. It is not a half-hour, quick and dirty process; there is plenty of time to gather the information that is needed to declare the subsidy, which can then, pretty promptly, be put on to what I suspect will be a simple database form that the CMA, or whoever, will put in place. I do not think it is an intrusive burden to have to say, “Here is what we gave to whom and why.”
I should add that I would like it to be possible to see the identity of the beneficial owner of the entity that has received the subsidy on the database, so that we can see who is really benefiting, rather than seeing some obscure, lower-down subsidiary name, which would make it not very easy to trace by going through the whole system who has been getting what from different public authorities.
Let me suggest as a comparison the furlough scheme, which is essentially a subsidy being given to businesses to pay their employees’ wages. We have published the names, in a range of bands starting with £1 to £10,000, of employers who have received that subsidy during the pandemic. I think that if we can publicise the details of employers who have received up to £10,000, we can justify publishing the name of anyone who has received a subsidy that has gone through a due process, down to a much lower level than £500,000, without its being unduly damaging to their commercial confidential interests. I think that someone involved in the process of asking for money from the taxpayer should accept and welcome that transparency. There should be nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide: if that money is needed for a good purpose, there is no reason why we should not know about it. I urge the Government to make some changes in that regard.
I was intrigued by the remarks about the way in which taxation policy can elide with the subsidy regime. There are quite a few cut-outs for taxation situations which I guess make sense, but I think there could be a role here. If we are giving individual taxpayers very generous tax deals, letting them off liabilities that they may owe for reasons that may not necessarily be entirely technically robust—as people have feared before—I see no reason why those should not count as subsidies and therefore be published through this regime, in order to get around that horrible situation in which we know that deals are being done but we do not know who the beneficiaries are. I think that it would be an interesting legal challenge to establish whether they are caught by these rules.
My final remark—I think—concerns the exclusion of subsidies for purposes of national security. I have absolutely no objection in principle to our being unable to publish everything that is spent in relation to national security, but those words—
“for the purpose of safeguarding national security”—
constitute a very broad definition. We have hit a problem with the freedom of information rules in this regard. Some authorities have an incredibly broad interpretation of what that means. I think it was the West Yorkshire fire and rescue service that would not publish a response to an FOI request about the vehicles it had bought in case someone could somehow clone them and thus get into its premises. I hope that the Government are not expecting to have such a ridiculously broad definition of national security that we cannot in any circumstances see the subsidy given to any defence company, or police authority, or fire and rescue authority. Given that energy security is probably a national security issue, presumably no energy subsidy could be published. I suspect that some creative people around the country could find all manner of ways of making the broad definition “for the purposes of national security” exempt almost anything from these rules. I hope that we can be clear in Committee about the sort of things we think we should not publish, and about where the line should be drawn as to what we can see. If we have too many exemptions from these rules, we will end up weakening confidence in the system. We could end up with scandals that could lurch us away from the fast-moving, flexible system that the Government want in order to get aid where it is needed fast. We could end up back in a cumbersome, slow and bureaucratic system to try to avoid the scandals that we could see from a lack of transparency.

Kirsty Blackman: It is great to hear the thoughtful contributions from that Tory Bench, although not from the Treasury Bench, I hasten to add. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and I have spoken in many debates together, and I always appreciate his forensic assessments of the details in the Bills before us. I hope that he will be on the Committee, and I hope that I will be too.
First off, I want to ask a couple of questions about what the Secretary of State said, because I am immensely confused by a couple of the things that he said. First, he said that the devolved Administrations were broadly happy with the Bill. If they are broadly happy, why have the Welsh Government said that they object to five of the six parts of the Bill? One out of six does not equate to “broadly happy”. In fact, I get the impression that they really do not like it and are not happy about it.
We have not seen what the Scottish Government are saying about the legislative consent motion, but I cannot imagine that they will be terribly happy with the power grab that is occurring as a result of the Bill. So I am quite confused by what the Secretary of State said. Does he mean that the devolved Administrations are broadly happy with having a state aid regime? Does he mean that they are broadly happy with the detail of the Subsidy Control Bill? I do not know. I do not understand what he is saying, because it does not seem to be coherent with what the Welsh Government have said in public about this.
The other thing that I am really confused about is what the Secretary of State said about the EU state aid provisions no longer applying to Northern Ireland. I thought he said something about article 21 of the Northern Ireland protocol, but maybe he meant article 16. I am not sure what he meant. In terms of the planned changes to state aid application in Northern Ireland, he  seemed to be saying that the new subsidy control regime would apply there and that the UK Government were seeking some sort of change to an article in order to ensure that that happened. I am not aware of any publicity around the UK Government asking the EU for a change, but if that has happened, why have we not heard about it?
Could we please have a bit more information on this? We have the trade and co-operation agreement and we have the Northern Ireland protocol, but how do the UK Government expect these measures to apply in Northern Ireland without us breaking either the agreement or the protocol? That does not make sense. If the Secretary of State was making that important an announcement, you would think he would do it in a ministerial statement rather than as an aside during the Second Reading of this Bill. I would be really keen to hear a bit more information about what this actually means.

Seema Malhotra: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the confusion that has been raised. Does she agree that it is important that the Government clarify what they are suggesting has changed in relation to article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol and whether it has been dropped on the basis of this Bill? Should they not also tell us whether their proposal has been negotiated with the EU, and what the status of those discussions and any agreement might be?

Kirsty Blackman: Absolutely. If we as a country can suddenly renege on our international obligations and agreements, why cannot Scotland hold an independence referendum next week? The UK has agreed to these agreements and it would be great, when the Minister speaks at the end of the debate, if he could explain exactly what is going on. This is serious enough for a Minister to be making a separate statement to the House, because it is such an important matter for the people of the UK and particularly for the people of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) spoke eloquently about the levelling-up agenda, and I agree that the red wall Tories elected in the north of England should be jumping up and down about this—we are jumping up and down about it, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) suggested—because it explicitly excludes us from doing anything that may disadvantage any other area of the UK. In schedule 1, principle F says:
“Subsidies should be designed to achieve their specific policy objective while minimising any negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom.”
And principle G says:
“Subsidies’ beneficial effects…should outweigh any negative effects, including in particular negative effects on competition or investment within the United Kingdom; international trade or investment.”
That reference to international trade or investment confuses me.
The principles try to level the playing field across the UK, so there can be a subsidy in Manchester only if a person in the south of England would not move their company as a result.

Sammy Wilson: For balance, does the hon. Lady accept that principle A says:
“Subsidies should pursue a specific policy objective in order to remedy an identified market failure”?
If there is market failure and certain regions of the United Kingdom are disadvantaged because of their distance, history, lack of skills, lack of resources or whatever it happens to be, principle A allows subsidies to be used for levelling up.

Kirsty Blackman: Principle F rejects that, so which one has primacy? Which one is the most important? If they directly disagree with each other, is it more important that we can do what is said in principle A or is it more important that we can do what is said in principle F?
I think the subsidy regime should be used in the same way as the EU state aid regime, which focuses on regions that need additional support. Whatever this Conservative Government say—we will not believe them anyway, given the amount of lies we have been told—it is not the case that this regime assists levelling up; it does the opposite. If they want to assist levelling up, they should design a regime that ensures different areas can have different subsidy regimes that benefit their local area even though they may disadvantage other areas.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Lady may have identified this herself already, but freeports, for example, allow businesses to relocate and benefit from different taxation regimes. Such businesses are treated more beneficially in how they operate and in their cost of operation. Does she accept that freeports do exactly what she is setting out?

Kirsty Blackman: Freeports are not covered by the subsidy regime we are talking about today. They are a separate thing. I can say from the Back Benches that I am not particularly keen on freeports, but the idea is that there is a wall around the port—the guidance specifically says that there has to be a physical barrier around the area—and there is a different taxation regime within that wall. I am yet to be convinced of the economic benefits that will come as a result.
We hope to have green ports in Scotland, and the failure of the UK Government to agree that we can pay the real living wage and focus on net zero within those green ports means that the freeport system, as it stands, is not nearly as advantageous as it could or should be. Even though the freeport system is set up to encourage such things, I have not seen evidence that it will actually do so, particularly given the rejection of the key principles we want to put in place.

Angus MacNeil: It is unclear that the UK Government have a strategy to replace the EU’s successful regional structural funding for Wales, Northern Ireland and many parts of the highlands in Scotland. Such funding and state aid go hand in hand, and they are seen as different things. Indeed, the freeports are seen as a different thing. There needs to be something else to go with this for areas of the UK that are disadvantaged by policy set in the south-east of England for the south-east of England.

Kirsty Blackman: Absolutely. We need to replicate the good things we had in the EU, the things that supported different areas. A system has been put in place to ensure  that different parliamentary constituencies can get money from the UK Government, but it is super-interesting that the constituencies the Government have chosen to put at the top of the list are those constituencies represented by Conservative MPs, rather than the constituencies with the highest levels of deprivation. The difference is dramatic.
It is hugely concerning that, if the UK Government are left to do so much in this Bill by guidance, as set out in clause 79, we are going to have a situation where the Secretary of State will have significant control and flexibility without even having to come through door of this House. The Bill says that the Secretary of State is going to issue guidance about
“the practical application of—
(a) the subsidy control principles;
(b) the energy and environment principles;
(c) the subsidy control requirements in Chapters 2 and 3”.
I am clear that there needs to be detailed guidance, but we should be at the stage where we are scrutinising it. When we come to the evidence sessions in Committee, the people before us should be able to talk about the guidance. I get that some of the regulations are going to be made by the affirmative resolution and some by the negative resolution, but my major concern is not those that are going to be made by resolutions in this House; it is those that are going to be made by guidance.
Let us we look in detail at some of the stuff in this Bill. Schedule 2 says:
“Subsidies in relation to energy and environment shall be aimed at and incentivise the beneficiary in—
(a) delivering a secure, affordable and sustainable energy system and a well-functioning and competitive energy market, or
(b) increasing the level of environmental protection compared to the level that would be achieved in the absence of the subsidy.”
I am keen to know what “environmental protection” means. What does it mean? It is not in there. We do not know what it means because we have not seen the guidance that the Secretary of State is going to be allowed to produce on their own without running it past this House.
The same applies in respect of
“a secure, affordable and sustainable energy system and a well-functioning and competitive energy market”.
Does that mean a well-functioning and competitive energy market for those people who buy and sell energy, or for the consumer? Does it mean for the person who is being hit by those higher fuel bills or for the people trading gas on a daily basis? I do not know what it means because we do not have that information. If the Government were willing to provide us with the guidance, and we had access to it and seen it, we would be able to ask questions and comment on the specificity of the guidance. When we have experts come before the Committee, we would be able to hear their expert opinion on it, but we cannot, because we do not have the guidance. It is really unfortunate that, on Second Reading, when we are deciding whether or not the Bill should go forward, we have not got the information we need in order to do that.
I want to make a couple more points about energy. One of my colleagues mentioned the transition charges. The subsidy regime that is being set up says, “We can’t have one part of the UK advantaged over another part of it.” However, it also says, “No subsidy can negatively affect interconnectors.” So we will still have a situation  where energy from the EU is allowed to come into the UK—the companies are not paying any charges for using our network—yet people who have wind farms in Scotland are paying £5.50 per unit of energy. And those in Wales are being paid £2.80 per unit of energy. That system was created when fuel was driven around in vans and had to be driven to places that then used the power. One of my colleagues said that there is an incredible level of disinterest among those on the Government Benches about dealing with transmission charges. I appreciate that some of them have considered it, but a Minister has not stood up to say, “You are right. This is a travesty and we need to fix it.” We would really like a commitment on that, particularly if this Bill is going to give protection to interconnectors but no protection to those wind farms in the north of Scotland that are being charged an absolute fortune.
I want to talk about the Labour party’s position on the Bill, as I am really disappointed that it is not willing to vote against it. It is important for it to do that. We are going to vote against it. I am on the left. I appreciate all the things that the Labour party has done in the past, but I have spent six years getting increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Labour party to oppose this Tory Government and to stand up even for the Welsh Government at this point. This is really unfortunate. I do not understand at all why the Labour party is not voting against this tonight. We are voting against it. I am not going to support this Bill, as I do not think it should get its Second Reading. I say that for reasons of the power grab, the massive inadequacies in the Bill and the fact it is going to do the opposite of levelling up—it is going to entrench the inequality we already have.

Simon Baynes: I welcome the Bill, particularly as a Welsh Member of Parliament, because it will provide the framework for a new, UK-wide subsidy control regime. This will, for the first time, enable authorities, including the devolved Administrations and local authorities, to deliver bespoke subsidies that are tailored to local needs. I want to reinforce that point because it has been a key part of the discussion, in reference to the EU subsidy areas. In my opinion, those regions were not targeted enough. Large parts of Wales were not included in them, despite having areas of deprivation. The Bill will apply to the parts of Wales where need is greatest.
The Bill is also essential—the UK internal market is essential to our prosperity. Trade with the rest of the UK is worth more than trade with the rest of the world combined to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is especially the case in Wales, where Welsh businesses purchase more from the rest of the UK than from Welsh businesses plus the rest of the world.
The Bill promotes accountability through a standardised, UK-wide database. Transparency and simple comparison will provide accountability across the UK. It must be stressed that reporting by the devolved Administrations is often absent or uses different criteria, which prevent like-for-like comparisons. For example, the Welsh Government do not publish waiting list times for all NHS procedures, unlike other parts of the UK.
The Bill promotes the Government’s levelling-up objectives. The UK is built on local communities, not just Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London. Building  up and streamlining local authorities’ partnership with the UK Government are key to strengthening the Union. Speaking as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I have to say that the Welsh Government are not the easiest organisation to deal with for those living in north Wales and looking for Government help. Their focus is very much on south Wales. The message from the debate that giving money and subsidy control to the Welsh Government will mean that money is spread across the Principality is incorrect. I was interested by the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). He should be fair and recognise that Plaid Cymru is riding two horses in negotiating an agreement with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, yet criticising the Welsh Labour party while here. Plaid Cymru Members need to recognise that they cannot have it both ways.
The Bill benefits the devolved Administrations, too. That message has not come across strongly enough in the debate. It lowers costs and streamlines decision making, including for the devolved Administrations. Streamlined subsidy administration ensures that the devolved Administrations can roll out their own regimes at lower cost and greater speed. The UK internal market competition distortion principle will protect the devolved Administrations and the English regions from being pushed into competition spirals with neighbouring authorities.
I am pleased to back the Government on the Bill, which takes back control from the EU, allows us to deliver on the British people’s priorities, strengthens the Union and gives confidence and certainty to businesses and investors. It will enable local authorities across the UK to play an equal role, rather than everything always being put in the centre, in London and in the devolved Administrations. We need to enable the whole country, at a local level, to become involved and provide the dynamic to create a better life for all our citizens.

Sarah Olney: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I thank the Minister for his engagement on the Bill; it was useful to discuss the seven principles in detail beforehand. We welcome the fact that the Bill has been introduced, that there is a proposal to replace the EU subsidy regime and that the Government are making provision for it, but I put it to the Government that what is in the Bill is really only half of what we need if we are to have an effective and adequate UK subsidy regime.
The first thing missing relates not so much to what is in the Bill but what should stand alongside it: an effective industrial strategy. The Bill makes it clear that the purpose of the regime is to guide the awarding of grants for strategic purposes, but we do not know what the strategy looks like because we do not have an industrial strategy that identifies our key sectors and industries. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) put it so succinctly, we are not even entirely sure which regions of the UK we most want to support. Any subsidy regime that is not accompanied by a clear industrial strategy is really only half the picture, because we just do not know where the public support might best be directed.
As a number of Members have already said—I defer in particular to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the points he made—the key thing missing from the Bill is transparency. What subsidies will be paid to whom? Without that level of transparency, we will have no real scrutiny of the decisions made. Quite apart from all the other related points that have been made, the key thing for me is how we can measure the value or impact of subsidies if we do not have a clear idea of exactly what subsidies are being paid to whom and for what purpose. How can we be certain that those subsidies reach the right people, organisations, regions and sectors, and that they provide the kind of targeted support that we want? Without clarity and transparency, we cannot properly evaluate what the taxpayer subsidises.
The point about the scrutiny of individual subsidy decisions has been made a number of times. There has been much discussion about the CMA’s role, but it strikes me that although the CMA will have a role to play in scrutiny, it will have no enforcement role. It is probably right that the CMA will be consulted not on every particular subsidy but just on those that are of interest, but for it to be asked to look at subsidies of interest but have no enforcement role seems to me to be a bit of a waste of time. It also highlights the fact that no overall independent body will assess the subsidy regime and whether subsidies have been awarded according to the principles outlined in the Bill. Who will hold the various local authorities to account for ensuring that the principles have been adhered to? There does not seem to be a role for any independent body.
Without an industrial strategy, clear data on which bids are successful and an independent body to provide guidance, how much faith can individual businesses, or their lenders or investors, have in their likelihood of success? How can confidence be built among investors who bid for a subsidy? How can they assess their likelihood of success? The Bill will lead to inefficiency in the system, because it will discourage businesses that might have had a good chance of getting a subsidy if only they had had all the information available when making their bid, and the available subsidies will perhaps then be given to businesses that do not have such a good case.
I refer again to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who used the term “unproductive”. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I care as deeply as any other Member in this place that we get good value for taxpayers’ money. It seems to me that without clarity, guidance or an overarching industrial strategy, there is a real danger that subsidies will be awarded behind closed doors, without clarity. That would make for the inefficient allocation of resources, which we all want to avoid.
The only restraint on subsidies that this legislation allows for is the threat of legal action by competitors who might have missed out. Without that clear information about who is getting a subsidy and what for, it seems the information simply is not going to be available for those legal challenges to be mounted. How will affected businesses know that they have been disadvantaged and how will they be able to gather sufficient information to mount an effective legal challenge? None the less, that legal challenge appears to be the only effective restraint on how subsidies are handed out.
Through this Bill, the Government seem to have constructed a regime that will enable secret payments without scrutiny or challenge. It does not provide enough of a route to challenge or anyone to hold to account in order to ensure that the principles are being observed. To be honest, it surprises me that this Government, who already have a reputation for cronyism, would not take greater care to ensure that those perceptions were not perpetuated.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to listen to the various arguments on both sides of the House.
I am a committed free marketeer and have been in business for most of my life, and I do not think that I have ever accepted a Government subsidy—other than perhaps last year under the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. I would be interested if the Minister could reflect on whether that would qualify under this legislation. I do not really believe in subsidies, but a world without subsidies requires a perfect free market and we do not have a perfect free market. We do not have the perfect consumer, the perfect market competition or the perfect provision of small and medium-sized enterprise finance. At times, a Government absolutely need to step in and provide subsidies where there is market failure, so I welcome this legislation and the vast majority of its provisions.

Stephen Flynn: Does the hon. Member think that the Government, under these new terms, will provide more subsidies than they did under EU state aid, or the opposite?

Kevin Hollinrake: I know that is the hon. Member’s question, but I think it is the wrong question. For me, the key question is whether the subsidy is going to spend taxpayers’ money well. We can claim success not just by giving more money away than was wasted, but when the taxpayers’ money that is used proves fruitful. We should not be disappointed that we have had one of the lower subsidy levels of the countries compared today. We should be proud of believing that our businesses should stand on their own two feet. Nevertheless, I do support on occasion the Government and other public authorities providing subsidies in certain areas and for certain things.
I welcome the Bill. I know that the Minister will ensure that it receives good scrutiny and passes through its different stages. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), in that my key point is about having a greater level of scrutiny and transparency. The No. 1 reason for transparency is that, as my hon. Friend said, Governments of all shades are pretty poor at picking winners, so it is important that Governments and public authorities are held to account for their decisions to grant subsidies, which are taxpayers’ money and must therefore be spent well.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made an important point about cronyism. Some of the claims of cronyism in procurement that we have heard today are unsubstantiated and have been shown to be inaccurate in the National Audit Office report. People who claim otherwise bring shame on every single Member of this House; it is a flawed method of political point  scoring that is deeply unhelpful. The National Audit Office clearly said that Ministers were not involved in procurement decisions.
Nevertheless, I believe in scrutiny and complete transparency, particularly when significant amounts of money—up to half a million pounds in some schemes, as we can see from the legislation—can be handed out by a local authority or devolved region, without scrutiny. Some local authorities have better reputations than others when it comes to spending money, so it is really important that we can see exactly what local authorities and devolved Administrations are doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) brought up this point. If we do not see a level of scrutiny, different parts of the country could try to use different means of creating some advantage, or indeed try to raise grievances, which is something that we hear not too infrequently in this place.
I absolutely support the proposal to reduce the threshold for scrutiny and transparency from the current level of £500,000, or £315,000 for cumulative subsidies outside a scheme, to a much lower level of £500. As a businessperson myself—I declare an interest—I would have no objection to declaring any taxpayers’ money we had received in our business. I think the only time we have ever received it was through the furlough scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which we returned without drawing on it. If we are taking taxpayers’ money, we should be accountable for it, whatever level it is at. I think the only objection that could be raised to a much lower limit would be creating red tape, but according to the research I have seen, there is a minimal amount of red tape and a minimal amount of cost—about £20,000. This simplifies matters in many areas.
In all the different cases where things have gone wrong—I deal with lots of cases of fraud and malpractice in all kinds of different financial markets—the key element of scrutiny and transparency in identifying wrongdoing has usually come from members of the public, who are perhaps closer to the ground than our regulators. If the database is made fully public, we are more likely to pick up on wrongdoing. Members of the public, and members of the press, do a fantastic job in tracking down this kind of wrongdoing.
I urge the Government to look at the threshold and bring it down to a much lower level. Aside from that, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.

Sammy Wilson: In principle, we welcome this Bill. First, it represents an opportunity for us to introduce subsidy control regimes that are specific to the United Kingdom and are not influenced by Brussels and the wider European interest, hence sometimes actually detrimental to our own country. It is an important part of the whole Brexit process that we have this independence.
Secondly, it is important that we have a nationally controlled regime. As one who speaks from a region of the United Kingdom, of course I want an even playing field when it comes to the application of subsidies. Some regions are richer than others and will therefore have more money to be put into subsidies than others. Some areas may have more political influence. That  is partly why I find some of the objections raised by  Opposition Members very odd. For example, a Minister in central Government could introduce subsidies for constituencies in a way that is beneficial to the electoral interests of his own party—the governing party—and we need a control regime that enables that kind of decision to be challenged.
My only concern about the Bill—perhaps the Minister will clarify this later; it has been raised by Members already—is that the challenge function seems to be limited to either the Secretary of State or to interested persons. As far as I can see in any definitions that have been given in the Bill, interested persons would not include Ministers from any of the devolved Parliaments or Assemblies in the United Kingdom. In fact, the only such definition is in clause 8, which refers to businesses and enterprises. The Minister needs to clarify this. If he wants to argue that this is a robust control regime, then the ability to make referrals must not just rest with the Secretary of State. It must also rest with devolved Administrations, who have interests in how subsidies may be used, particularly by central Government Departments or Ministers. Others may want the challenge function so that they can make mischief. If the Minister is serious about saying that we want to have an effective UK-wide regime, it must be clear that the function is available to all interested parties across the UK.
I come specifically to the Northern Ireland issue. Of course, in Northern Ireland the control of subsidies will not be totally under the Competition and Markets Authority or the tribunals. We will operate a dual regime under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. On state aid and its controls, it is quite clear:
“The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5”—
a whole list of EU rules is there—
“shall apply to the United Kingdom, including with regard to measures supporting the production of and trade in agricultural products…in respect of measures which affect that trade between Northern Ireland and the Union which is subject to this Protocol.”
The Secretary of State said in answer to the Opposition spokesperson and, I think, the Scottish National party representative that, as far as the Government are concerned, it is clear that Northern Ireland is covered by the Bill, but the only way in which Northern Ireland can be totally within its provisions is through the removal of article 10.
I know it is a lengthy Bill, but I have read through it and I do not find any reference to article 10 being altered, removed or changed. Perhaps the Minister can point that out to us later on. I would welcome that, by the way; in fact, I would be overjoyed, and people in Northern Ireland would be overjoyed if that is hidden somewhere in the Bill in words that I do not understand, have not spotted or whatever. If it is there, please point it out. There will be great rejoicing in Northern Ireland as a result.

Kirsty Blackman: Even if that were in the Bill, I am concerned that it is not in the competence of this place to change that unilaterally without having a discussion with the European Union.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Member made that point, and I was not sure whether she was supportive of the withdrawal of article 10 or appalled at the prospect  because the EU opposes it. The one thing I did notice, however, was that she was appalled that there should be any interference in the role of the Government in Scotland to make subsidy decisions. If that is the case, she should be equally appalled for policy makers in Northern Ireland and welcome any unilateral decision by the Government here at Westminster to give them the same freedom.

Kirsty Blackman: I honestly do not have a view on whether it is a good or bad thing. I am just utterly confused, because I do not think that the Government have the power to do it. I want to know what they mean so that I can work out whether I oppose it or not. I do not know what they are saying.

Sammy Wilson: Of course, the Government have the power to do it under article 16 where it is deemed that provisions in the withdrawal agreement are damaging economically to Northern Ireland. I cannot think of anything more damaging to Northern Ireland than a subsidy regime that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom but which can be stopped from applying in Northern Ireland.
Let me give some examples of how conflict between the dual systems could operate. One of the principles outlined in schedule 1 is that subsidies should be proportionate—there is no fixed percentage; it is simply that they be proportionate—but under the EEA-EU state aid regime, subsidies cannot be more than 50%. For example, if a subsidy is made available to a firm in Scotland that could equally be looking at Northern Ireland, Scotland would have the advantage of saying that it is so important to Scotland and fits in with its objectives that it will give it a subsidy equal to 70%—that may even be accepted under the control regime in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, Northern Ireland would be excluded from seeking to attract that firm on the basis that the EU state aid rules say it cannot go over 50%. That is one way in which the dual system is going to be a disadvantage.
Another example is that the EU refuses to allow state aid to be given where it is simply for expansion, but under the principles outlined in schedule 1, a subsidy of that nature could be given in the rest of the United Kingdom. We could find that a subsidy complies with the control regime in GB, but does not comply with EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, so placing Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.
On the EU state rules—and the Secretary of State said it—one of the reasons for bringing forward our own control system is that it can be more flexible and quicker. In fact, I think he said that a decision could be made within 30 days, but under EU state aid rules, there has to be a standstill period that can last up to a year. The Secretary of State said that in the House today. Again, when it comes to attracting businesses by using subsidies in Northern Ireland—even if we could match the subsidy available in England, Scotland and Wales, or wherever else somebody is trying to attract the firm—the slowness of the process, imposed by the fact that we are subject not only to the control regime in the rest of the United Kingdom, but to EU state aid rules, could mean that we find that a firm simply says, “Well, we can get a decision quicker in England, Scotland or Wales, and that is where we are going”, and Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged.
That is one of the reasons why no fiddling about with regulations is going to make a difference here. If Northern Ireland still remains firmly under article 10 of the withdrawal agreement, state aid rules apply there and the dual system has to apply there, then this is not a case, as someone has said, of trying to control the subsidy race, because Northern Ireland cannot even enter the race. We will be spectators of the race, stopped from entering it by the provisions of article 10 and the requirement for Northern Ireland to remain under the state aid rules.
Lest people think that this is just an issue for Northern Ireland—they may say, “Well, tough! That was what happened with Brexit.”—let me say that this is the elephant in the room and the issue has not been addressed in this Bill. Those state aid rules apply to trade between Northern Ireland and the Union, but any subsidies to a firm that operates through Northern Ireland into the EU, even though it is based in England, Scotland or Wales—or might even trade into the EU through Northern Ireland—will also be caught up in this.
The issue of the reach of the state aid rules has not been addressed in this Bill, and it is not just an academic argument. It is not even just for subsidies that may be given to firms in England, Scotland or Wales; this can also affect the international trade deals that the Government do with the rest of the world.
For example, British Sugar has challenged the deal made by the Secretary of State that allows 250,000 tonnes of sugar cane into the United Kingdom tariff free. That has been challenged by British Sugar on the basis that it represents unfair competition in the European market. British Sugar sells on the European market. It uses sugar beet, and tariff-free sugar cane would give Tate & Lyle an advantage. That is being challenged in the courts, and article 10 has been cited. If we are to ensure that a subsidy control regime does not disadvantage one part of the United Kingdom, or catch some of the subsidies that may be made available to firms located in other parts of the United Kingdom, rather than in Northern Ireland, article 10 is all-important. It is important for the Minister to provide clarification on that.
I have spoken to officials in the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. They have said—it is quite clear why—that they are finding it difficult to get information about how this scheme will work. So much of the Bill depends on new regulations being made. The general headlines are there, but the regulations need to be made. For example, what is an interested party, and will the Minister regulate to widen the scope of that? What about guidance for the subsidy and the person of interest, or about subsidies of particular interest? We do not know which subsidies are likely to be of particular interest, but that will be made by regulation. The Bill is peppered throughout with indications that such things will be clarified by regulations from the Minister, and that is important when it comes to the operation of subsidy control. We are dealing with the Bill, yet we are blind to some of the issues that need to be addressed.
Another issue is the time allowed for appeal or challenge, which is 30 days. I do not want the same long drawn-out process that the EU has, but 30 days in which the subsidy is registered or placed on a database is particularly short. Why has that period been selected, especially since getting information together for such a challenge might be that much more difficult? Lastly, the tribunal  has significant powers, but it is how those powers will be used that is important. When the Bill comes to Committee, it is important that many of these issues are addressed.
From a Northern Ireland perspective, I hope that the promise made from the Dispatch Box is correct. If it is, I would love to see where that is being delivered in the Bill. If not, I would say that the Bill does not deal with some of the factors that have caused the greatest distortion of trade when it comes to the application of subsidies, namely a dual regime in Northern Ireland—a regime that allows the European Court of Justice to make those decisions. The promise made by the Minister in his opening speech that the Bill represents the freedoms we have thanks to Brexit is not quite true. The Bill still leaves a significant foothold in the United Kingdom for Brussels and the European Court of Justice when making final decisions about subsidies that apply in Northern Ireland, or about subsidies that are given to firms in England, Scotland or Wales, but that may fall under the EU state aid regime because, through their trading in Northern Ireland, they impact on the European market.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that it would appear that the Division bell is not operating properly in Speaker’s Court, and that those in the offices in that part of the Palace might not hear the bell properly. I hope hon. Members will not rely entirely on hearing the Division bell to know that there is a Division taking place. It is not unusual for there to be a Division. There may or may not be one when we conclude this debate, but it is not unusual that there should be a Division when we have Second Reading of a Bill.
For new Members who have not quite got it yet, if a Division takes place, it will take place immediately after the concluding speech by the Minister. In this case, the Minister is the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), so if anyone is in any doubt as to when a Division might take place, if there is one, it will be after they see the hon. Gentleman’s name on the Annunciator. If they watch out for that, it will not matter that they cannot hear the Division bell, because they will know that a Division is likely, and on their monitor it will say “Division”.
I hope that that will help to prompt people to know that a Division might take place. I have no idea when that might be. I can only tell hon. Members that it will be at 7 o’clock at the latest; it depends on how long the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam speaks at the Dispatch Box. But first, we have Robin Millar.

Robin Millar: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense a restlessness among colleagues, so my comments will be brief, and the moment we are all waiting for, when the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), gets to his feet, will be upon us shortly.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and it is only right and  proper that UK law and a UK subsidy regime must prevail in that part of the United Kingdom. I hope, indeed, that they will be rejoicing on the streets. My understanding is that the Government have, in effect, made it clear that article 10 of the protocol is redundant, given that the subsequent trade and co-operation agreement establishes a framework of mutual recognition of state aid rules, with which the Bill complies. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his remarks.
I want to make a point about how the Bill supports devolution. We have heard Opposition Members refer—not universally, but on a couple of occasions—to how the Bill damages devolution. There is much that could be said about the gaps between the way the world is viewed by Opposition Members and the way it is viewed by Government Members, but one such gap has come through during this debate in the constant references to things that are missing. I suggest that that gap indicates different ways of looking at things: while Government Members are happy to set down principles within which business can flourish and prosper, it seems to me from the comments made today that Opposition Members are looking for a high degree of prescription about what can and cannot be done. Those are different ways of looking at the world.
Let me make it clear that I am a supporter of the principles behind devolution. I want to draw out three principles in particular: local leadership, broader accountability and shared prosperity. Sadly, the first, local leadership, has never really been fully realised in north Wales. To us, devolution has led to decision-making powers flowing south to Cardiff bay. In Scotland, too, we have seen a centralisation of powers, with decision-making powers drawn from the regions to Holyrood and reserved to the Government there.
As just one example—I could give many—we saw that in the disbursal of EU funds. Only 9% of EU funds spent in Wales made it as far as local authorities for decision making; the majority were decided on and spent from Cardiff bay. England has its own problems and challenges in this area, but, by contrast, the figure in England was 36%: four times as much money and decision making flowed out into the local authorities and the regions from Westminster. That is a telling tale, because the sense in north Wales is still that Cardiff is distant and remote—accusations that are typically laid against this place. The Bill will help to address that and give local authorities and even the devolved Administrations freedom to set up targeted, effective and practical schemes in their area.
I must say, though, that something has changed in the air in north Wales since the arrival of this Government in Westminster. The sense of alienation is starting to evaporate. Those who know the area of the world I am talking about will know that in the Conwy valley and Aberconwy, the morning mists start to roll down the valley at this time of year, and they are starting to evaporate now thanks to the Government’s involvement.
There is much that I could say about how the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has changed things, but I will not, for reasons of time. I will say, though, that the prospect of inbound UK Government funds has rapidly mobilised my own council, Conwy County Borough Council. It is engaging with communities and  leaders on their thoughts and plans for delivering change, and I am grateful for the support and engagement of its leader, Councillor Charlie McCoubrey, and the economy portfolio holder, Councillor Louise Emery. For my part, I have been meeting local councils, organisations, residents and business leaders in the community to seek their thoughts and advice, and there is no shortage of them.
The second principle that I would like to draw attention to is accountability. I welcome the universal reporting database being introduced through clause 33. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) gave a tour de force on the benefits of the transparency that it will bring and even prescribed fresh air and sunshine to bring benefits to businesses.
The different reporting systems that exist in different parts of the UK have often clouded transparency and obscured comparisons. Wales and Scotland have different reporting regimes in many different areas—we have heard reference to patient waiting lists—and during the pandemic we have seen different local responses only causing further confusion. Key universal systems avoid such inconsistency, and the database provided for in the Bill will be one of those. They allow for public transparency and comparable information about how money is being spent in the UK.

Stephen Flynn: Will the hon. Member give way?

Robin Millar: I will, as the hon. Gentleman gave way to me.

Stephen Flynn: I thank the hon. Member. He said at the start of his speech that he respected devolution and believed in the principles of devolution, yet throughout his speech all he has done is criticise it, to the point where he is now criticising local authorities in Scotland. Far be it from me to defend a Tory-led local authority in Aberdeen, but why is he criticising local authorities, and how does that marry with his support for devolution?

Robin Millar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure what he was listening to. Not one word of criticism of local authorities has passed my lips. I was explicit in starting my speech by addressing the principles of devolution. I suspect that he may be confusing the principles of it with the practice of it that he sees in Scotland. Accountability is important, and it has been allowed to slip, but I believe that the Bill addresses that by supporting and encouraging it.
The third and final principle that I want to mention is shared prosperity, which the Bill will support. Aberconwy has seen an impressive recovery from the pandemic, and according to some reports Llandudno has experienced the fastest recovery of any town in the UK. I pay tribute to those who are working so hard in their businesses, from Glenn Evans and his team at the Royal Oak in Betws-y-Coed to Clinton and his team at the Blend coffee shop on Clonmel Street in Llandudno. Right across Aberconwy, it is people like them who make that economic recovery a reality. We owe them a debt of thanks and gratitude for their hard work—it is not we in this place but they who make the difference, and I am grateful to them for it. The prospect of additional funds and subsidies coming their way—coming our way, into Aberconwy, directed by local leaders and businesses—provides the potential to capitalise on that endeavour, help economic recovery and bring forward the promise of a locally delivered prosperous future.
Of course, there is much to do. Other principles set out in part 2 of the Bill ensure that our internal market operates freely and without hindrance, avoiding the subsidy race that has already been referenced between different parts of the UK. Other parts of the Bill reduce bureaucracy and—again, I make this point—enable decision making by devolved Administrations in a targeted and effective way, faster and in a way that they could never do before.
Finally, I support the Government’s hopes for the Bill that it will enable a thriving competitive economy and, in north Wales, lead to the kind of investment that we want to see in renewable energy, road, rail and broadband connectivity, and, I hope, even a freeport. It is because I believe the Bill delivers on the principles of devolution and makes possible a prosperous future in Aberconwy that I will be voting in support of its Second Reading.

Chi Onwurah: It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which in general has been a very considered and well-informed debate with some excellent contributions. We heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about the many gaps in the Bill, while the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) highlighted concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, which I will also mention in my contribution. Even the contributions from the Government Benches highlighted some of the issues and challenges with the Bill.
I start by echoing the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in her excellent contribution at the start of the debate regarding the lack of female representation on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ministerial team. It is disappointing not to see balanced leadership, particularly in a Department working on such critical issues as increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering and maths and increasing start-up businesses among female entrepreneurs.
We recognise the need for legislation in the area of subsidy control to meet our commitments under the trade and co-operation agreement, and to ensure subsidies are provided to businesses with appropriate safeguards in place. It is clear that the current temporary arrangements are insufficient and have not provided the clarity that businesses and public bodies need. We also recognise that a new regime will allow local authorities and others to make some subsidy decisions more quickly under a simplified process than under the EU regime, and it is welcome that we are moving away from a system of advanced notifications towards one of self-assessment against a set of common principles. However, there are substantial issues with the Bill that have been raised in this debate.

Alex Sobel: Considering some of the procurement practices during covid, particularly for personal protective equipment, is my hon. Friend not concerned about the lack of definition around subsidies of “interest or particular interest”, which might create the appearance or the actuality of cronyism, considering the Government’s record?

Chi Onwurah: As always, my hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Indeed, he anticipates a couple of points I will be making. It is certainly the case that we should not leave this Government to define their own procurement principles. The Bill as it stands leaves a significant amount to secondary legislation. The balance between the efficiency of the system and the need for effective oversight, and, most importantly, the role for the devolved Administrations in developing and implementing the new system, are all important gaps.
First, as with previous Bills, including the National Security and Investment Act 2021, important aspects are left to secondary legislation. Public bodies need guidance on how to interpret the subsidy control principles, as we heard from Members during the debate. There is also little clarity on how the Bill will support the UK’s most deprived regions, which is something that was built into the EU state aid regime through the assisted areas system. The Bill was a key opportunity to spell out what levelling up actually means, but the Government have not risen to that challenge.
Secondly, there needs to be a balance between oversight and efficiency. An expedient system is vital, but we must be clear that any subsidy regime comes with the risk of market distortion and unfair discrimination, which is why the ambiguity regarding interested parties is a concern. It is also important to consider the role of the CMA’s subsidy advice unit and particularly to ask whether its lack of investigative and enforcement powers is appropriate. We will work with the Government to ensure that the right balance is struck. I hope that the Minister will provide more clarity when he winds up.
Finally, our most serious concern about the Bill relates to the role for the devolved Administrations in the new system. We have heard from Members across the House, as we did during the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, that yet again the Government have given the matter little consideration. The Secretary of State’s intervention on that point did not provide the clarity that he seemed to think.
We recognise that subsidy control is a reserved matter, but the wider context cannot be ignored. Devolved Administrations have important powers in the area of economic development, so the Government need to tread carefully. Leaving so many areas to secondary legislation only means that there will be no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations when developing the system. The same point applies to the Secretary of State’s ability to call in subsidies. We are clear that the devolved Administrations must have an explicit role in developing and implementing the UK’s subsidy regime as part of a four nations approach.

Stephen Flynn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Chi Onwurah: I am afraid not. I have to make progress and I have very little time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member has intervened on a number of occasions, and I am afraid that I need to make progress.
We recognise the need for the Bill to replace the insufficient current arrangements, but although it significantly increases the speed and ease with which public bodies can grant subsidies, the key question, as we have heard again and again, is what the Bill is for. We have still not had an answer. As my hon. Friend the Member  for Feltham and Heston said, we lag behind our G7 neighbours in granting subsidies to our businesses. Speeding up the system will benefit businesses only if there is a proper plan in place. That is where an industrial strategy could step in, providing the framework for the Government to set priorities, target deprived areas and boost business investment.
Labour has set out a plan to make, sell and buy more in Britain. From green jobs in manufacturing electric vehicles and offshore wind turbines to FinTech, digital media and film, we must grow businesses and industries that are fit for the future. The use of well-designated, proportionate subsidies would be critical to that plan. Instead, thanks to the Secretary of State’s ideological aversion to industrial strategy, we have no clarity on how or where public money will be spent. I urge the Minister to give close consideration to the points that we have raised.

Paul Scully: It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this important debate. I aim to respond to as many of their points as possible in the time available—I know that we have further business—but I would like to begin by quickly reminding the House of what the Bill signifies and what it will achieve.
The Bill is the very first subsidy control framework designed by the UK for the UK. It will be flexible and agile, allowing all public authorities to design subsidies that deliver strong benefits across the whole UK. For the first time, in all instances, public authorities will decide whether to grant a subsidy. The Bill will provide certainty and confidence to businesses investing in the UK. It will enable public authorities to deliver strategic interventions that will support our economic recovery and deliver on the priorities of the British people, such as levelling up.
We have talked a little about scrutiny; the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central spoke about scrutiny of secondary legislation and guidance. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) raised the issue of the lack of scrutiny in this debate. It is nice that the Opposition have found a couple of Back Benchers to come and join the debate, but it is outrageous that we have had so little input from Opposition Members.
This Bill will strengthen our Union by protecting our internal market through a single coherent framework that fully complies with our international obligations. On that note, I thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston, for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for their points. To ensure that the new regime works for all parts of the UK, we look forward to continuing to work closely with the devolved Administrations, as we have throughout its development, as the Bill passes through Parliament. We hope that the devolved Administrations can understand and support the approach that we have taken, and will give their legislative consent. I can say to the SNP Members who spoke earlier that to date we have had  30 meetings with the devolved Administrations on an official-to-official basis to discuss the Bill, and 10 at ministerial level.
We also heard a bit about the devolved Administrations’ input into guidance. Obviously an agreed framework is needed before there is something to give guidance for, and we have made that clear in discussions with our devolved Administration colleagues. We will continue to work with them as we work through that guidance.

Deidre Brock: The Minister will have noted the concern of the Welsh Government about the fact that the agriculture and fisheries subsidies will be within the scope of the UK subsidy regime as a result of the Bill. We have already heard today a member of the Minister’s party express concern about his local farmers being undercut by devolved Governments’ support for their farmers. Can the Minister assure us that this Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will not be used to interfere with decisions by the devolved Governments on devolved matters such as agriculture?

Paul Scully: We have consulted on agriculture, fisheries, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. There was no particular agreement among the devolved Administrations, but some people raised those issues.
The Bill introduces a permissive framework. It is totally different from the EU state aid regime, which is the only regime of its kind in the world. No other country, no other trading bloc, has such a restrictive regime, whereby authorities must ask permission and then wait for months to receive it. The Bill flips that on its head. A public authority can give support where it feels the need for it, and only the most distortive levels of support will then be challenged and go through the courts.
Let me turn to some of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberdeen North, and by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in relation to how this interacts with the Northern Ireland protocol. I reiterate that the UK will continue to be a responsible trade partner that respects our international obligations. However, as the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said in his opening speech, the robust subsidy regime that the Government propose makes it clear that there is no need for EU state aid rules to continue to apply in Northern Ireland, and that all subsidies will be within the scope of the domestic regime. This framework has to work with whatever is involved in our international obligations. However, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim will know, the Command Paper gives the details of that, and I should love nothing more than to hear of rejoicing in his constituency.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister argues that the robust regime should mean that there is no need for EU state aid to apply because there is already sufficient scrutiny of any subsidy regime. Does he not accept that the fact remains, as far as the EU is concerned and as far as the law states at present, that the EU state aid rules still have to apply in Northern Ireland?

Paul Scully: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Command Paper, and assure him that those negotiations will continue.
The hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberdeen South raised the important question of how the Bill helps deliver on our priorities to level up opportunity in this country, ensuring that every region and nation benefits from growth. I can reassure Members throughout the House that our new regime will give authorities the flexibility to deliver subsidies where and when they are needed to support economic growth, without facing excessive bureaucracy or the same lengthy pre-approval processes that they faced while we were members of the EU. In response to points raised by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberdeen South, I would highlight that assisted area maps are not the only way of addressing inequalities. A map can be a blunt instrument, making it difficult to address inequality and disadvantage within regions.
I also want to respond to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on whether the domestic regime would allow Ministers to resist the siren call of ever greater intervention in the market, and whether it would be sufficiently rigorous compared with the EU’s prescriptive and prohibitive rules. I want to reassure the House that the regime in this Bill is indeed robust. It operates alongside the UK’s existing spending controls—the Treasury controls—which are subject to significant parliamentary control. The Government have no intention of propping up unsustainable or failing businesses, nor will future Governments be able to do so.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston was right to say that it is vital that there is independent oversight of the UK’s domestic subsidy control regime. The subsidy advice unit will provide advice that is genuinely useful to public authorities in designing their subsidies and assessing them against the regime’s requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about advance approval. As I say, this is a permissive regime, so this is not about advance approval; it is about advice that public authorities will be able to take. On the Secretary of State’s referral powers in relation to the subsidy advice unit, he will not be able to overturn decisions unless they relate to security issues or international obligations. The regulation of harmful and distortive subsidies is reserved to the UK Parliament. The Secretary of State therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the new regime is enforced consistently across the UK.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) raised points on the importance of transparency in the regime. Our regime strikes a proportionate balance between minimising the administrative burden for public authorities and gathering more data. I think this is more about an issue with the interoperability of databases themselves, rather than about legislation. The guidance that we will work on will help public authorities and recipients to understand the practical application of the regime and what they will need to do to comply with it.
To conclude, I want to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to an excellent and informative debate today. I strongly believe that the new UK subsidy control regime that the Bill sets out will help us to deliver key Government objectives, protect jobs and make the UK the best possible place to start  and grow a business. I look forward to discussing the Bill further in Committee, but for now I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 50.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Subsidy Control Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Subsidy Control Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 18 November 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No.83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Subsidy Control Bill: Money

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52),
That, for the purposes of any Act arising from the Subsidy Control Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the establishment and maintenance of the database of subsidies for the purposes of Part 2 of the Bill, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided as a result of the carrying out of functions by the Competition and Markets Authority under or by virtue of Part 4 of the Bill.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That Sir Edward Leigh be appointed as a Parliamentary member, and that Paul Lewis be appointed as an external member, of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
I remind the House that the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 established a sponsor body, which has overall responsibility for the restoration of the Palace of Westminster and acts as a single client on behalf of both Houses. The body is comprised of parliamentarians and external members, including the chairman. That ensures the right balance between cross-party and cross-House parliamentary support for the works, and the appropriate external professionalism and expertise.
As required under the terms of the Act, the motion before the House seeks to appoint a Member of this House and an external member to the board of the sponsor body. That follows a fair and open competition for the external member position, following the departure of Brigid Janssen, and the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to his new position as the Minister for Security and Borders at the Home Office. I pay tribute to both for their contribution thus far. They have worked hard during the current stage of the restoration and renewal programme, in which proposals for a fully detailed and costed plan are being developed prior to their consideration by Parliament in due course. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment to ministerial office.
In their place are two excellent candidates, who I hope the House will agree will provide valuable insight and perspectives into the sponsor body’s efforts. It is perhaps embarrassing in his presence to lavish too much praise on my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but he unquestionably deserves it. He is a distinguished and long-serving Member of this House and I expect that few know their way around the ins and outs of the palace and what really needs to be done quite as well as he does. He brings a wealth of experience to his position. He currently serves on the Public Accounts Commission and he ably chaired the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. He also served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Parliamentary Buildings Bill. I am sure many Members will agree that he is one of the House’s experts on parliamentary restoration. I expect him to support restoration and renewal with a keen eye for scrutiny on public spending, otherwise known as taxpayers’ money. I expect him to show support for an architecturally sound, historically sympathetic and beautiful restoration and, of course, an understanding of what Members would vote for as elected representatives.
Secondly, I turn to Mr Paul Lewis. He is a chartered civil engineer with more than 40 years’ experience in the construction and property industry. His early career was spent with the Laing group in design, planning and construction on a variety of projects in the United Kingdom and abroad. He is currently a director and senior adviser to Stanhope, having worked for 35 years at the company since its infancy. In addition, Mr Lewis holds a personal, non-executive position with the royal  household as an independent adviser on the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme. He is also a non-executive director at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The sponsor body believes that Mr Lewis’s experience and knowledge from his work on a multitude of large, complex developments will be a great asset to the board and to the restoration and renewal programme. His ability to be on the board of two royal palaces is a rather splendid confirmation of his high abilities.
We know that the restoration of this historic palace is essential, but we also know that the works must represent value for money for the taxpayer. The Government will continue to work collaboratively with the sponsor body to deliver that. I remind the House that the programme must be focused on the vital works, not gold-plated add-ons. Costs must be kept down and the work delivered on budget and on time. This is an important task and I wish both new members well. I commend the motion to the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: I am, of course, pleased to hear of the appointments to fill the vacancies on the sponsor body. We in this generation of parliamentarians have been allotted an important job of work and it is our duty to see that it is done in, yes, the most cost-effective way, but the most cost-effective way for the long term as well as the short term. This building, which we all love so much, must be preserved for future generations not only of parliamentarians but, more importantly, of the people of this country, who are democrats who value the democracy that this building so embodies.
I pay tribute to the outgoing members of the sponsor body board for all their hard work and dedication, to which the Leader of the House is right to have drawn attention. I join him in his tribute. I welcome both new members to the sponsor body board and look forward to working with them both, with their different qualities, attributes and experiences, to which the Leader of the House referred. I look forward to their applying the keen eye to which the Leader of the House referred to public spending and to the fact that public expenditure is only going to get worse if we do not make sure that we do the right things in a timely manner. The more we put off the inevitable, the more the costs will escalate and the more, in the long run, we will have to spend taxpayers’ money to preserve this building and enhance it in ways that are entirely necessary if it is to be preserved for the long term.
The Leader of the House and I often spar on this topic, and we both know that in many ways we have agreed to disagree, in a respectful manner that I hope will continue. I believe that is good, because it allows for proper and constructive debate and scrutiny.
I urge all right hon. and hon. Members—particularly the new members of the sponsor body—to consider, if they have not already done so, including in their conference recess reading the excellent “Mr Barry’s War” by Caroline Shenton, late of this parish. It is a particularly useful book and is pertinent to the process. I hope that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has read it—[Interruption.] He is nodding, so I take that as assent. If he has read it, he will, I hope, have  observed, as I did, that the moral of the tale is that the more politicians meddle in things that they do not understand and are not qualified to understand, the less well the process will go. That does not mean that we should not have proper scrutiny, hence the presence of not only the right hon. Gentleman but my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on the sponsor body.
It is important that Members are on the sponsor body board and scrutinise decisions, but it is also important that we do not pretend to be architects and engineers. That book tells us great moral tales of what happens when Members pretend to be engineers when they are not. That is how we end up with voids that are fire risks. That is how we end up with ideas that sound great in one’s head but are not so great when they are built into the fabric of this wonderful building. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will take my plea to heart over the conference recess. I know that the book is available in the Library because I returned it only recently.
I also hope that we can start to approach the task with the degree of urgency that is required. The Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me refer to full decant, because he knows my view. That is what this House voted for, for good reasons and after thorough scrutiny and consideration. We cannot keep putting off the decision. As the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough know, the sponsor body will soon complete a review of whether a continued presence could be maintained in a cost-effective way. I trust that all new members of the board will take note of the cost-effectiveness requirement when they consider whether a full decant or a continued presence is the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’ money. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I commend the new members to the sponsor body.

Kirsty Blackman: I just want to say a couple of things. First, I thank the outgoing member, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who has done a great job, particularly in answering questions from Members in this place. He has really led on that and we have appreciated it. We disagree on a lot of things, but he has been excellent at representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body. I also welcome my new colleague, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and thank the board for the work it did and the process it went through to ensure that Paul Lewis, whom I welcome to the board, was chosen.
Let me pick up a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). Do you know what? Me and my colleagues are very keen that we get out of this place, and we will be quite happy to just leave you guys to it—that’s fine. I think that there are an awful lot of better ways that taxpayers’ money could be spent, but the hon. Member for Bristol West made some good points about what the House has voted for and what we are now being asked to look at. I still have concerns about the way in which the governance structures are working, because, for example, the House of Commons Commission is making suggestions that seem to be in contrast to those made by this House. That is not a tenable ongoing position, because we will  end up in a situation where the sponsor body board is not going to be able to do the things that it is supposed to do because it is being overruled or given three different sets of instructions that drastically vary from each other.

Mark Tami: I also thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for all the work that he has done, and welcome the new members, Mr Lewis and, of course, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I am sure that they will be keen to build a business case as quickly as possible—the business case that this place needs and that will be put to the House, because the one thing that we cannot do is what we have been doing for too long: kicking the can down the road.
With the greatest respect, the Leader of the House is a champion can kicker. He is one of the best can kickers I have ever seen. He is an expert at can kicking. No one is better in this House. But we cannot keep doing that, because not only is this about the Chamber and this place; it is also about the other buildings on the parliamentary estate. Portcullis House has a leaking roof and an atrium roof that is becoming increasingly unsafe. Norman Shaw South was out for five weeks. It was just fortunate that that happened when the recess was under way. Even the usually reliable Parliament Street building is leaking in places. We really need to get on with the job.
The one thing that I would say to the new members of the board and to the House is that nobody on the sponsor body wants to create Disneyland. I have been there—it is terrible! I did not enjoy Disneyland. We are  not going to create it and we are not going to spend the sort of money that the Leader of the House thinks we are. The only people living in a fantasy world are those who think we can put this off and ignore it, and that ignoring the issue does not cost money. It does. It is costing a fortune—year in, year out. We really need to get on the job and make sure that we have a Parliament that is fit not just for now, but for the centuries ahead.
Question put and agreed to.

Business Without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Agriculture

That the draft Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)

That the Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure (HC 689), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Andrew Selous.)
Question agreed to.

Keyham Shootings

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Luke Pollard: On Thursday 12 August at about 6.10 pm, the first shots were fired in Keyham. In the space of the short amount of time that followed, our city was forever changed. That day, we tragically lost five members of our community. We remember Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Lee Martyn and his three-year-old daughter Sophie Martyn—five people: mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, friends, neighbours and colleagues, members of the community whose lives were taken from us too soon. We also remember two others who were injured and taken to hospital that day, whose recovery we continue to hope is as full and fast as possible.
This incident has devastated the proud and tight-knit communities of Keyham and Ford in Plymouth. Tonight I will not be speaking about the causes of the shooting. The inquest and the ongoing investigations will set out the answers to those in due course. I want to focus on how our community will get the support it needs not just today, tomorrow, next week or next month but for the coming years—support to come to terms with what has happened, and hopefully support to heal. We know the earlier the help arrives, the greater the effect it will have.

Sheryll Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. As he knows, one of the victims of this atrocious act of violence lived in my neighbouring village of Kingsand for a time. I met her on a number of occasions as our children both went to the same school. She did nothing to deserve this callous and cowardly act. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask for support for this neighbourhood and I support him. We need to heal the people and try to help them to cope with this barbaric act. I thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Lady, my colleague from just across the Tamar. This tragedy has affected not just our entire city of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall and the wider peninsula, but the country as well, and it is something that we face together. I thank her for her remarks.
Our community in Plymouth is facing a collective trauma. We know that there are over 300 eyewitnesses to the shooting—people who have seen a body or blood on their street—and many of those are children, who should never have witnessed anything like this in their young lives. There is nothing that prepares you as an MP for the conversation with a parent about how their child saw someone get shot in front of them—what they should say, what they should do, who they should turn to—and not always having the answers to give them. Like many of the community responders, I had conversations like this not just once or twice but many times every day in the aftermath of the shooting.
My experience, though, has been no different from the school staff at Ford Primary School who opened their doors to the community just hours after the shooting,  the street pastors, the police officers and the PCSOs, the local vicars, the staff at our local Co-op, or the residents told to stay in their homes for days after the shooting with the bodies of their neighbours on the streets outside. I say these things not just to seek and elicit sympathy but to illustrate what collective trauma means in a very real human sense. Biddick Drive in Keyham could be any street in any of our communities, and that is what makes this tragedy so scary for all of us.
Plymouth is a trauma-informed city, and the experience of communities in similar circumstances in the past has shown us that after an event like this there are consequences that can be predicted. More children will struggle at school, get lower grades and drop out of school earlier. More people will face unemployment and insecure work. More people will be a victim of crime and more people will themselves commit more crime. More people will experience and suffer from domestic and sexual abuse. More people will suffer from severe mental health problems, anxiety and depression. I see it as my job as Keyham’s MP to do everything I can to stop that from happening.
As a city-wide response, local councillors from all parties, community leaders and the police and crime commissioner all shared in this effort. This really has been a Team Plymouth response. I have never been so proud of my city as I was in the days after the shooting. There was an incredible response on the day from the paramedics and the police who rushed to the scene, the four air ambulances that attended, the doctors and the nurses, the city council and its staff, the local schools and many more. Our whole community stepped up. The teams at Ford Primary School and Keyham Barton, as well as Stuart Road and other schools, have been superb, as have the churches that opened their doors immediately—St Mark’s and St Thomas’s in particular. I want to thank the local councillors—Sally Cresswell, Jemima Laing, Bill Stevens, Mark Coker, Charlotte Cree, Tudor Evans, Gareth Derrick and Stephen Hulme—and the police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, and her team for the work they have done. This was a Team Plymouth response. I also thank the Wolseley Trust for its co-ordinating and fundraising for the Plymouth together fund, which has already raised thousands for the funerals, the victims and the community, but more is needed. Donations are still being made online.
Local businesses large and small have also stepped up, including Zoe Stephens from the Co-op, who provided candles for the vigils and cups of tea at the events, and Richard Baron, who dropped everything to install more home security for residents. When your child cannot sleep because of what has happened and they are scared that a bad man will come through the window, a simple window restrictor is worth more than its weight in gold. I want to thank in particular Keyham neighbourhood watch—Sarah, John, Simon, Lena, Laura, Kicki and Hazel—and its relentless and positive chair, Kevin Sproston. I thank everyone for the outpouring of support from across the country. The support that we saw in Plymouth was cross-party.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I want to express solidarity from across the Tamar in Cornwall. We all feel what the hon. Member feels, particularly about children being safe. It should be a given that every child should be safe in their own bed  at night.

Luke Pollard: I thank the hon Member for that intervention and for giving me time to compose myself. I agree wholeheartedly.
The support that we saw in Keyham was cross-party. The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary visited to share the nation’s condolences. It is important to say, because some people are sometimes sceptical of politicians and parties, that party politics is irrelevant here—not secondary but irrelevant. It is the people of Keyham and Ford who are the focus for me and colleagues on a cross-party basis in Plymouth. It has made me extraordinarily proud of our city. Despite the tragedy, we have come together and cared for one another, but we need more help.
Our conversations with Ministers have been productive and constructive. The funding bid prepared by Plymouth City Council, Devon and Cornwall police, the police and crime commissioner, our local NHS and our mental health provider Livewell Southwest, backed on a cross-party basis, is reasonable, proportionate and laser-focused on tackling the trauma caused by this mass shooting. In the weeks that followed the tragedy, we pushed the entire city’s resource into Keyham. We have managed that, but we can do so only for a few weeks and not on a long-lasting basis. We are asking for support now so that we have what we need not just for Keyham, Ford and North Prospect but for the rest of Plymouth.
We have asked for additional educational psychologists and social workers to help our children deal with the trauma they have experienced. We have asked for more support for teachers and local schools so that teachers, teaching assistants and school staff can help the children deal with what they witnessed. We have asked for more social workers and a higher capacity for children’s social care, because we know that our community will have more complex needs in the months and years ahead. We have asked for more support for the community safety partnership so that families can be reassured that they are safe in their homes. We have asked for more youth workers to help our young people get through this and stay resilient. We have asked for more bereavement and mental health support to help people process the things they saw and how they are feeling. We have asked for more victim support to make sure that those who have lost everything have everything that they need at this terrible time, and we have asked for more police on our streets to reassure a community where some people are still scared to leave their homes, scared to return to work and fearful about letting their kids out to play. Some of those requests are about policing.

Jim Shannon: May I first commend the hon. Gentleman? He has spoken about how the community came together, but I think we all recognise the leadership given by their MP. Every one of us can say that the people of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport should be immensely proud of their MP. I wrote him a letter, because I was well aware of the leadership that he had given the community.
We in Northern Ireland have suffered greatly over the years—the hon. Gentleman and I have talked about it—with the impact on adults and, in particular, on children. We are probably all thinking about the schoolmates of the children who were killed—they are probably wondering why their friends are not here today. The issues are real.
I know for a fact that the Minister will do this without my asking, but does the hon. Gentleman agree about the importance of some communication with those in Northern Ireland who have helped in these issues to give the solace, help and support that is really important, especially for young children? Our hearts break and ache for the children who grieve today.

Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The tragedy we faced in Keyham has reminded so many other communities of tragedies they have faced. One thing we have benefited from is the experience and the lessons of other communities that have been through so much—from Northern Ireland, but also from Manchester. In particular, the team at Manchester City Council after the Manchester Arena bombings have shared so many of the things that they did and so many of the lessons that they learned with so much honesty and transparency.
There is a temptation to say that in the response we had all the answers, and we did not. The bid we have put together is partly about policing, partly about education, partly about mental health and partly about recovery and healing, but it is a bid that all ties together and that deals with every aspect of our community. It is in that way that I think the promises that were made to Keyham and to Plymouth in the days after the shooting—that our community would not be left behind, that the victims would not be forgotten, that help would be provided—are so important to remember now.
The ask we have made of Ministers is a big one. It is a multimillion-pound ask, and I am sure it is a difficult one to receive as a Minister halfway through a budget year, but it is important that we take time to look at what a difference it would make. The focus for me is on the immediate support—on what can be done in the next year, in particular. We have tried to request funds from current Government spending pots that fit with departmental spending priorities. We have had and are continuing to have good conversations with the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Communities. I think this underlines the importance of having a lead Minister to co-ordinate and pull together a pan-Government response in this respect, and I am very grateful to the Minister for Crime and Policing for doing that role, working across Departments to help us get the support we need.
There has to be a national debate that takes place as a result of this shooting about strengthening our gun laws, about proper mental health support, about addressing the poison that is lurking in the rotten underbelly of the internet and about how to help angry young men. Keyham’s voice will be heard in that debate, but the focus right now should be on getting the support that is needed to the people who need it right now. Plymouth needs big hearts to prevail in giving us support, and calm and cool heads to prevail in the changing of laws. I do not want any other community to go through what we have in Plymouth, and that means the changes must be right and they must be right first time.
This has been the hardest month of my adult life. I live half a mile from the shooting, and this is my community. I think we are all hurting—I am hurting—and the sense of loss is deep and profound. For me, it is the children who are the hardest aspect of this—the children  who witnessed it, and not just the toddlers, but the teenagers. I think it is worth saying at this point that it is okay not to be okay. I have not been okay at times, and I am probably still not okay now. I think that none of us who experienced this really is. Each of us will process the pain and loss differently. Some will do so quickly, and others will take weeks, months or years to start to heal or to feel able to come forward to talk about what they have experienced. For the victims’ families, the loss of a loved one will mean there is a part of them missing for the rest of their lives.
Sometimes I feel really silly having these feelings because I did not see anyone die, but I did see the forensic tents over the bodies and the pressure-washed pavements where the blood had been cleaned away, and I have spoken to dozens and dozens of people who saw someone killed in front of them. I think I have a responsibility to take my own advice, so I have been getting some help as well to help me deal with what I have experienced and the stories that have been shared with me. Not everyone has to make a speech in the House of Commons to admit it, but help is available if you need it, and I encourage people to come forward. This is not a sign of weakness; I think this is just an admission of being human. That is why the support we are asking for is so badly needed. It keeps the support workers in our community, and it provides the reassurance for folks to leave their homes, for kids to play outside—importantly, for kids just to be kids again—and for all of us to start to heal.
Plymouth is a strong city. We always look out for one another, and it is in the darkest hour that even the tiniest glimmers of light shine the brightest. It was the compassion of neighbours, the love of friends and family, the messages of support, the expertise of professionals, and the promise that we would not be left behind that saw us through.
I have spent a lot of time speaking to the Minister, and to other Ministers and officials, and making the case, as have colleagues from our city council, the police, our NHS and mental health services, and right across Plymouth. The case for immediate and long-term funding is an important one, and I am grateful that it has been listened to with respect and dignity. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet, he will have good news to share. For those who are watching in Plymouth it is important that we say this: we will get through this, and we will get through it together.

Kit Malthouse: Let me begin by saying that my thoughts, and those of all Members of the House, will largely be with the families who so tragically lost their loved ones—Sophie and Lee Martyn, Maxine Davison, Kate Shepherd and Stephen Washington—on that dreadful day in Keyham. This was a truly horrific and shocking incident, and we owe it to the victims to learn all the necessary lessons from what happened. We also offer our very best wishes to those who are injured, and pray that they make a full recovery.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing this debate, and I offer my appreciation for the way he has  worked in collaboration with me and my colleagues on this important matter. Securing the right support for those who are victims, survivors and witnesses of the shootings lies at the heart of this debate, and I recognise just how remarkable the local response has been in the immediate aftermath of this horrible incident. That is something of which Keyham, and obviously the hon. Gentleman, can be incredibly proud. The Home Secretary witnessed it first hand when she visited on 14 August to meet the chief constable, as well as the hon. Gentleman and local leaders.
It is right that the response to this incident should be led by and for the local community, as they are best placed to know their needs. That has been embodied in the Plymouth Together campaign, which I know the hon. Gentleman has been involved with. I have been reassured to hear in our conversations throughout the past weeks that victims, survivors and witnesses have had access to all the support they need immediately. I have also heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about ensuring that such support is sustainable long term, and that it will be there when it is needed in future.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I think we have a responsibility to Plymouth, and particularly to the children who were involved in the shootings and witnessed those murders, and it is important that we do not forget them, that we are constantly there for them, and that we can provide the funding wherever and whenever possible to ensure that they get through this horrific episode without scars on their futures.

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is quite right, and if she will give me a moment, I will outline the part that the Government will play in helping Keyham to grieve and to recover. I have been reassured in our conversations that immediate support is available for victims, witnesses and survivors, and that such support must be sustainable in the long term. I know that the office of the police and crime commissioner, Victim Support, Plymouth City Council and its local partners have done outstanding work in supporting those impacted by this incident, and drawing in support from across the entire city. I express my gratitude for their proactive and constructive approach, as well as that of the police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez. I also echo the tributes paid by the hon. Gentleman to the emergency service personnel who played such a critical part on the day in their response, and who continue to do so on a daily basis.
Although it is right that the response is led by the local community, it is also right that central Government support those efforts and ensure that victims get the help they need. Later this year the Government will introduce a landmark victims Bill, to enshrine the rights of victims in law, ensuring that victims are better supported to recover and have confidence in the criminal justice system, and that more offenders are brought to justice. To ensure that victims receive the rights and support they are entitled to, we published a revised victims code in April to make it a clearer and comprehensive framework centred on 12 key rights for victims.
When these awful crimes happen, the nationally commissioned homicide service is there to offer support to families bereaved by murder and manslaughter, to support them to cope and, as far as possible, recover. The service covers a range of practical and emotional  support, and in Keyham it will be there for as long as it is needed by the families who have been impacted by this awful event. The 24/7 support line, live chat and My Support Space services have been available to anyone seeking support, while locally commissioned support services have had staff and volunteers placed in the community, directly delivering support and providing a reassuring presence.
Thankfully, shootings of this nature are very rare in the UK, but when such horrific tragedies happen, they have a profound and devastating impact on those affected, the local community and our society as a whole. We have not come here today to debate the cause of the crimes, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, but it is important for me to put it on the record that protecting the public is our No. 1 priority, and we are supporting the police with more powers, resources and officers to carry out their critical work now and in the future.
No one should ever have to live in fear of crime. Following this incident, I know, because the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it today and previously to me, that that is a real concern for everybody in that part of Plymouth. In the wake of such a terrible tragedy, we are fully committed to helping the local community, and I can inform the House that we have allocated over £1 million in additional Government funding to support the recovery effort in Keyham. Over £800,000 will be invested in community safety and policing to help rebuild confidence and reassure the public that Keyham is a safe place to live, work and go to school. Part of the recovery is also ensuring that there are adequate support services available for the victims and witnesses of these attacks. Almost £300,000 will be made available to the Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly police and crime commissioner to commission additional support services as required.
As we have heard movingly this evening, one very important issue is the number of children and young people who sadly witnessed the events that took place last month. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to the local schools in the area, which opened to the community to facilitate immediate support. He has asked for support for the local schools in Plymouth. I am pleased to say that educational psychologists have been made available to the schools in the vicinity to support children and young people to deal with the trauma they may have witnessed. We know that organisations such as Young Devon and Jeremiah’s Journey have been providing important practical and emotional support to those young people who have requested it.
As a result of the funding I have announced today, specific further caseworker support will be made available for children and young people who witnessed these horrific events. We know how important practical and emotional support are for victims and witnesses of crime, and it is for that reason that I have agreed to make funding available not only for caseworkers but for specialist emotional support, including trauma and  counselling provision for those who witnessed these horrendous acts of violence, including children and young people.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in discussions with the former Minister for schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), about additional support that may be available. Officials at the Department for Education have been in close contact with the council on this matter and continue to work in collaboration to understand the recovery needs.
I am sure that we all commend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for his honesty this evening in sharing the personal impact that this incident has had on him. I am sure that Members across the House will agree with him that asking for help is no sign of weakness. That is why an additional 130 spaces have been made available in local mental health services through the increasing access to psychological therapies programme.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is also sighted on the request for cross-Government support submitted by the city council following the tragic events. It will continue to work with the council, and with other Departments with an interest, to contribute, where possible, to the further recovery efforts in Keyham in the longer term. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that this issue remains a priority for the Government, and I hope that my colleagues will be able to say more about the available support in due course.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for securing this debate and for his constructive and positive engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues. I hope that I have been able to reassure him and the rest of the House about how seriously we take our responsibility to those directly affected by this tragedy and to the local community more widely. Let me say once again that my thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims whose lives were lost in this appalling incident, and with the wider community who witnessed this dreadful act. As the hon. Gentleman said, Plymouth will recover, but a process of grieving and mourning must be gone through first. We will be standing alongside all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the remarkable collective community effort in the aftermath of this horrific shooting, to make sure that Plymouth has a brighter future.

Nigel Evans: I would like to thank you too, Luke, for bringing this issue before the House of Commons in the way that you have. I wish you and your community well in the coming months and the years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.